> In short, I think we need to encourage integration, not division.
> We are way too small a group to start focusing on where the differences
lie.
>
> So, yes, let's have a neighborhoods meeting at Sweden -- I think this
> very important.


I couldn't agree more with Dermot on this.  One of the biggest problems in
psychological science as I see it, is its fractionation.  Little tiny micro
theories everywhere and almost no sense of responsibility for big theory
(even a derision of big theories among some).  WE need to work together to
produce a comprehensive coherent theory of human functioning.  To hold that
as our aspiration just seems imperative to me.

It takes a village.

k

Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
205 Peabody
University of Mississippi
University, MS 38677

Phone: (662) 915-5256
Cell:     (662) 816-5189
Fax:     (662) 915-5398
email:   kwilson@...
http://www.olemiss.edu/working/kwilson/kwilson/UniversityWebPage/Kelly%20Wil
son.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dermot Barnes-Holmes" <dermot.barnes-holmes@...>
To: <acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com>; <rft@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 12:09 PM
Subject: [RFT]


> I thought that Steve's point about ACT being a model rather than a set
> of technologies is a good one.  When viewed in this way, it is difficult,
> if not impossible, to sustain the argument that ACT and RFT are,
> or should be, independent entities.  Sure you can focus on one rather than
> the other, but each are implicit in the other.  If you adopt an RFT
> approach to human language and cognition, then the ACT model (if not
> the technologies) applies.  To argue otherwise, in my view, is to
misunderstand
> RFT, ACT or both.
>
> I also agree that we need an umbrella term.  There is a great deal more
> than ACT and RFT going on here.  I was very pleasantly surprised
> at the Reno conference last year on how much overlap there was
> among the different behavior and cognitive therapies.  But there's
> more too -- the education folk are making some very important
> inroads into the RFT work.  I recently received a manuscript from
> Chris Ninness on a beautiful application of RFT to math education.
>
> Dermot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dermot Barnes-Holmes
> Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
> Department of Psychology
> National University of Ireland, Maynooth
> Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
> Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
> Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
> Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
> Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
> Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

The Behavior Analyst Today voluime 4 issue one will be posted in the a.m of
Sat to www.behavior-analyst-online.org. This issue contains many great
articles. I hope that you take the time to download. And as always downloading
the issue is completely free.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: John Forsyth [mailto:Forsyth@...]
Sent: Fri 5/2/2003 3:55 AM
To: 'ACT_RFT_World_Conference@yahoogroups.com'; 'rft@yahoogroups.com'; acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ACT_RFT_World_Conference] RE: [RFT] Re: [acceptanceandcommit menttherapy] ACT and RFT

Hi Eric -- Actually, contextual approaches are on the rise.  Cognitive psychologists are rediscovering context, and the same is true of behavioral types doing respondent conditioning work (e.g., Mark Bouton's basic work on contextual control over respondent extinction processes; Michelle Craske's applied work on contextual control of exposure processes in anxiety disorders). I think there may be subtle differences in how contextual is used by other branches of psychology, but it is good to see it showing up elsewhere.  Personally, I don't think we should lay claim to brands of contextualism. -j  

 

John P. Forsyth, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Faculty Director, Anxiety Disorders Research Program
Research Scientist, Center for Stress and Anxiety Disorders
University at Albany, SUNY
Department of Psychology, SS369
1400 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12222 U.S.A.
Ph: (518) 442-4862
Fax: (518) 442-4867
email: forsyth@...
WEB: http://www.albany.edu/~forsyth

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Fox [mailto:eric.fox@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 5:05 PM
To: 'rft@yahoogroups.com'; acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ACT_RFT_World_Conference] RE: [RFT] Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] ACT and RFT

Steve wrote:

To me, ACT, RFT, contextualism, the new behavioral psychology that comes from all of them, are all one world.  . . . I think we should have a conversation session on this "what is the neighborhood"  issue at Sweden. I suspect we may need to find an umbrella name actually. ACT really is more of a model than a specific technology but the name and use pulls for its technological meaning. I think there is an umbrella forming that could include lots of folks (like many of those "non-ACT" folks giving invited addresses in Sweden ... see Kelly's other post). The very fact that these folks are coming is an small indication that this might be so.

______________________________________________________

 

Perhaps "contextual psychology" is an umbrella term we should all start using and promoting more actively? I'm not aware of any other perspectives that have a real strong claim to the term at the moment, and it seems to accurately characterize the functional contextualism/RFT/ACT approach to behavior.

 

To really stake a claim to the term, a professional organization or journal or something incorporating the name may need to be established. Or I could just start a contextual psychology web site. :)

 

Incidentally, one of the projects (read: I'll be looking for grant money for this) I would like to pursue post-graduation is the establishment of an electronic academic journal that takes full advantage of modern internet technologies and hypertext to reduce production time and costs, increase publication turnaround time, encourage exploration of related research, etc. Perhaps a "Journal of Contextual Psychology" would be useful?

 

-Eric

 

Eric J. Fox, M.A.
Exploratory Phase Coordinator
Preparing Future Faculty Program
Graduate College
Arizona State University
Phone: (480) 965-7080
Fax: (480) 965-5158
Email: eric.fox@...
http://www.ericfox.net
http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hayes [mailto:hayes@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:53 AM
To: acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com; rft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RFT] Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] ACT and RFT

This is of relevance to both the ACT and RFT list,
so I'll double post

Two small tweaks of Kelly's response. Re:

When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.

That's mostly so, but we have to add that arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARR)
is itself verbal behavior (said in another way, verbal behavior
framing events relationally) and AARR is not at its base regulated by contextual cues that result from AARR (ie., it has to start somewhere else, logically)

Which takes me to the second tweak. I've been cautious about the language of
"relational stimulus control" because it encourages the idea that the relations are
in the stimuli. A key to relational frame theory is that AARR is arbitrarily
applicable -- thus the relatedness of stimuli are not solely in the stimuli per se but in
additional sources of contextual control (even in the case of pragmatic verbal analysis ...
a technical point that is too difficult to cover in a short email). From fairly early days we toyed with
the idea of calling all of this "relational" instead of "verbal" (e.g., Hayes & Hayes, 1992, --
the American Psychologist piece). I'm OK with ambiguity on this point since it is
mere terminology. Either side has problems. "Verbal" confuses RFT with Skinner
and with lay use. "Relational" confuses RFT with traditional relational learning. (To see the
latter read the commentaries on the book by McIlvane/Salzinger/Malott/Osbourne/Spradlin
and our response that is coming out in Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
Should be out by ABA.) I suspect both terms will be used indefinitely, and my pragmatic
heart says that is OK -- just fit the use to the audience.

This thread reminds me of why I have thought for a while that the RFT and ACT lists
need to be combined. Someone posted a comment when I asked about that issue to the
effect of "keep them separate. ACT is not that much based on RFT. RFT is more
of an arcane theory that is in the mix because the originators of ACT also worked on it."
Conversely, Dermot posted a comment something like
"to get RFT, you need to get ACT" and someone
else said "to get ACT, you need to get RFT."

To me, ACT, RFT, contextualism,
the new behavioral psychology that comes from all of them, are all one world. Thus the
title of the Sweden conference. You can enter into that world and explore its neighborhoods
but sooner or later you will realize that if you are in the applied side, you need the basic
theory; if you are in the basic theory, you will realize you need application; in either area
you will realize you need the philosophy. So initially, the view might be "ACT is its own world ... RFT is in there because the originators of ACT also worked on it."
Later, however, questions will naturally arise (like the one that started this thread)
that can only be addressed by having both.

RFT is difficult to get ... but once you get it,
it is simple. What is hard about it is its radical functionalism / contextualism. Guess what:
that is what is hard about ACT too, and RFT and ACT both help each other because they
are like key multiple exemplars from the same contextualistic space (itself an
RFT-sensible idea). As we add other
applied programs from that same space (e.g., prevention interventions;
media; attitude change; education; etc) I predict that we will find additional
examplars that people need to really get what this neighborhood is about.
Learning RFT is not easy, I admit. I do believe, however,
that is it not possible to be fully competent in ACT without some grasp of it ...
because without it you inevitably divide the world differently, as based on lay or other
language distinctions, and that in turn leaks into therapy.

At Sweden there will be a session
by Vijay Shankar and Niklas Torneke, two practitioners with excellent grasp
of RFT, on the clinical implications of RFT. I would encourage clinical folks who come to
the Sweden conference to lean into the philosophy, basic theory, and other applied
RFT offerings -- not just ACT as such.

I think we should have a conversation session on this "what is the neighborhood"  issue at Sweden.
I suspect we may need to find an umbrella name actually. ACT really is more of
a model than a specific technology but the name and use pulls for its technological
meaning. I think there is an umbrella forming that could include lots of folks
(like many of those "non-ACT" folks giving invited addresses in Sweden ... see Kelly's other post).
The very fact that these folks are coming is an small indication that this might be so.

One problem with the "contextualistic world" view of the ACT / RFT relation
needs to be admitted: if it is too much "in your face" it makes entry into that
world seem too daunting. Also, if too few people's hands are on it, it looks
too narcissistic. The latter problem is being relieved by the wonderful way
that ACT / RFT is being taken over and owned by the whole
world ACT / RFT community. I think this developmental process
can't be forced ... but I see clear signs (the Sweden conference itself is one)
that more folks are seeing the whole neighborhood. It is the whole neighborhood
that makes what is happening here the sort of thing that could be of
fundamental importance.

- S

Steve Hayes

Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D. wrote:

mind and defusion
in an _attempt_ to clarify...."fusion" and "mind" are ways we talk about
verbal processes. This is really rft stuff as Jonathan suggests. When we
say verbal in ACT (really RFT) we mean relational stimulus control. That is
a _stimulating_event_ is said to be verbal if the event has at least some of
its psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes. When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.
This is a very special meaning of verbal--it is our own. It is not what
Skinner meant by verbal. It is way far from what the lay public means by
verbal. Why? We think that there is something special about verbal
behavior. Following Skinner's analysis, verbal ends up resolving to
discriminated operants where the contingencies are arbitrarily organized by
another organism. the rat pressing the lever ends up being verbal. In a
sense, this is absolutely right. The piece that was not available to
Skinner--having worked the theory out by 1945--was the rising tide of
phenomena that started out under the umbrella of stimulus equivalence and
now has expanded far beyond (thankfully). What Skinner intuitively
understood, but had no technical analysis of, was the ways that arbitrarily
applicable, arbitrarily applied relational responding might generalize,
massively propagate, and become more complex, among humans, given a history
of multiple exemplar training.
So, something that looks like a conditioned response like fear (I.e.,
respondent) could be verbal in the sense that it is under antecedent control
of an event that acquired the eliciting functions through relational
learning processes.
So, to come back around to the discussion a little anyway--comparison and
evaluation are some of mind's primary occupations, but since comparison and
evaluation are dominantly verbal activities for human subjects, they do not
in any way exhaust verbal. verbal = derived relational responding--this
essentially means that _any_ psychological function an event could have
could be established through relational means and be verbal (using our
definition), and as a corollary, _any_ response could be verbal in the sense
that it is under this sort of stimulus control.
Defusion means the lessening of the domination of specific verbal functions.
We know that under certain conditions, verbal functions will dominate over
directly and immediately experienced contingencies--when the dentist says
sit still, we respond to "sit still" even thought the directly experienced
contingencies "say" get the hell away.
so, from my talk in Reno last summer:
.Fusion: certain verbal functions of an event dominate over other directly
and indirectly available functions
.
.Defusion: is the process whereby these verbal functions become less
dominant, and others become available
well, at least that is my current best thinking on this matter.
It is not that verbal is the enemy. verbal also gives us valued action
extended over long time frames and under the control of "defective"
contingencies. This is why I highlight the fact that _certain_ verbal
functions dominate over _both_ directly _and_ indirectly available
functions. This will be very much present in my technical analysis of
values at the world conference. (OK, JT this morning right now--I'll write
and send the abstract.)
ACT seeks to undermine the domination of certain verbal functions, when the
domination of those functions restricts the client's (or my) ability to
participate fully in a valued life.
hmmmm.....somehow I doubt if that clarified anything at all....so it
goes...fun anyway.
k
Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D.
205 Peabody Building
Psychology Department
University of Mississippi
University, MS 38655
Office (662) 915-5256
Cell (662) 816-5189
Fax (662) 915-5398
kwilson@...
http://www.olemiss.edu/working/kwilson/kwilson/UniversityWebPage/Kelly%20Wil
son.htm
"One draught of Lethe for a world of pain?
An easy bargain; yet I keep the thorn,
To keep the rose."
John Erskine (1906)
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Kanter" <jonkan@...>
To: <acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] not all fusion needs to be
cognitive

In reply to Andrei:
When I said emotion mind and reasonable mind are cognitive fusion and thus
map on to self-as-content, it perhaps would have been more straightforward
to not equate them both with cognitive fusion but instead simply state
that they exemplify self-as-content. As you suggest, equating emotion mind
with cognitive fusion requires some explanation.
As you suggest, I actually do think more in terms of fusion with private
events as a general category than cognitive vs. emotional fusion. We don't
really want to do a microscopic analysis of "was that a thought?" or "was
that a feeling?". Without agreeing with cognitive primacy people like
Kihlstrom, I think we can say that any experience of emotion will have a
verbal component, at least historically, as in learning to label the
emotion, etc. The bidirectional nature of verbal stimuli, and
transformation of function, suggests that any given "thought" may have
respondent (emotional) qualities, and any given "emotion" may have verbal
qualities. It is this constantly active, thinking, feeling, whirling
(monkey) "mind" we try to defuse from/accept. It is a bit of a jumble.
That said, if we are doing ACT traditionally from start to finish, the
cognitive defusion/deliteralization exercises are distinct from and come
before the emotional acceptance exercises, and that is because this
distinctions and the staging are often useful. We deliteralize/defuse from
thoughts in order to faciliate the non-evaluative experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective. In DBT, this experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective is "wise mind," not "emotion mind,"
while when you are fused and not accepting and your emotions are in
control, you are in "emotion" mind.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

* Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Andrei Sachs wrote:

I see a problem with the mapping of "emotion mind" onto cognitive
fusion, although it makes sense to do so with "reasonable mind". In
ACT, while we talk about private events in a broad sense to include more
than cognitions, when we talk about fusion or defusion it invariably
becomes "cognitive". Is the implication that underlying all emotion is
a conscious appraisal process at work? Emotion theorists such as Zajonc
and others have made a persuasive case for pre-cognitive judgments in
emotions and situations where emotion has "primacy". Findings from
neural science from LeDoux among others also point to dual pathways into
the limbic system, ergo supporting the phenomenon of primacy of emotion.
If this were so, wouldn't we need to consider "emotional fusion" and
apply defusion interventions as appropriately? Isn't DBT about defusion
from emotion? If I feel it must be true... Separately, if sensations can
be viewed as a separate system from subjective experience, perhaps we
could consider "interoceptive fusion"! Andrei

 ----- Original Message -----
From: J. Kanter
To: acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] DBT versus ACT: an

inconsistency

 Some more thoughts on mindfulness and "wise mind" in DBT vs.

acceptance

 and distancing in ACT:
As Pat said, it is mostly a mistake to equate the three senses of self
in ACT with the three types of mind in DBT. They don't map too well,
although there is some overlap.
"Reasonable mind" and "emotion mind" are basically examples of

cognitive

 fusion so they map onto self-as-content. DBT is much more judgemental
about this stuff than is ACT: reasonable mind is generally seen as

good;

 however it is hard to act from reasonable mind when one is emotional.

A

 certain amount of emotion mind is also o.k. however BPD clients are in

it

 much too often. Basically, reasonable mind is when self-as-content

works

 and emotion mind is when it doesn't.
"Wise mind" maps onto self-as-context and in fact many of the DBT
mindfulness techniques are similar to ACT techniques and metaphors in

this

 stage. When I was learning DBT I often came in to group therapist

meetings

 with ACT exercises and they were always well received. As Mark said,

the

 "how" and "what" DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT, and have

a

 similar feel. I'm sure Steve and Marsha cite at least some common

sources

 to these aspects of treatment.
That is, DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT at least at the

level

 of technique, with some minor changes in language to fit the rest of

the

 treatment. For example, I agree with J.T. that the use of the term

"wise

 mind" can be problematic in ACT if there is a history of using "mind"

to

 represent cognitive fusion, as in "thank your mind for that." The term
"mind" is so loaded with meaning in our culture; the ACT usage

undermines

 and exploits this while DBT does not challenge the common usage. OF
course, we don't want to define our treatments by our terminology; ACT

can

 be done without using the term "mind" and still be ACT.
At a theoretical level, however, I think there are some problems with

the

 integration. The ACT approach is so completely theoretically and
philosophically consistent that, when DBT is viewed through an ACT

lense,

 it falls apart a bit. The DBT emphasis on dialetics, for example, I

think

 unnecessarily comlicates things; ACT simplifies. For example, "wise

mind"

 is described as a dialectical integration of "emotion" and

"reasonable"

 mind, as wise mind "depends upon the integration of all ways of

knowing

 something." The term "integration" is strange and doesn't quite work

in

 this context but is in keeping with the idea of the dialectic, which

of

 course is impoprtant to DBT. The ACT distinction between selves, to

me,

 and the emphasis on self-as-context is much more straightforward and

leads

 more directly to clinical techniques.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

 * Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, joseph_ciarrochi wrote:
> After this discussion, I have to agree with the doubts. The wise

mind

 > concept certainly seems to confuse things a bit, and probably should
> not be used in an act intervention. It would probably take four
> sessions to distinguish between the different uses of "mind" (and

the

 > word machines will be overheating).
>
> There is one aspect of DBT I do think is useful and completely
> consistent with ACT. As Mark W. mentioned, DBT does an excellent job
> of breaking mindfulness down into component skills (the what and how
> skills). I know this structure is added to help the really difficult
> clients. But, as someone who suffers from monkey brain

(mindlessness),

 > I also find it useful to have this structure (maybe I am a difficult
> client). I think other "normals" will appreciate it too.
>
> Joseph C.
>
> ps. can any of you budhists tell me the origin of "monkey brain." I
> can't find any text that refers to it, but I am pretty sure it is a
> buddhist idea. I think it refers to this mindless bouncing around

from

 > one thing to the next. The opposite of one-mindedness.
>
>
>
>
> --- In acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com, John

Blackledge

 > <jtandcyndy@e...> wrote:
> > Regarding Joseph's original post:
> > At a technique level, I wonder if the "wise mind" concept might
> confuse things a bit if used in ACT. It carries (at least for me)

the

 > connotation of rationality, logic, etc--all things typically
> associated with the word machine we're trying to unhook ACT clients
> from. I'm sure my caricature of wise mind here differs from the
> proper way DBT therapists use it, but I'm simply concerned that to

use

 > the phrase in a therapy where "mind" is something to step back and
> unhook from in problematic situations might breed confusion rather
> than clarity--regardless of how carefully the distinction between
> "mind" as generally discussed in ACT and "wise mind" is presented to
> the client.
> >
> > Original message attached.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 >
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/uetFAA/wQ50lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ACT_RFT_World_Conference-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ACT_RFT_World_Conference-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I thought that Steve's point about ACT being a model rather than a set
of technologies is a good one.  When viewed in this way, it is difficult,
if not impossible, to sustain the argument that ACT and RFT are,
or should be, independent entities.  Sure you can focus on one rather than
the other, but each are implicit in the other.  If you adopt an RFT
approach to human language and cognition, then the ACT model (if not
the technologies) applies.  To argue otherwise, in my view, is to misunderstand
RFT, ACT or both.

I also agree that we need an umbrella term.  There is a great deal more
than ACT and RFT going on here.  I was very pleasantly surprised
at the Reno conference last year on how much overlap there was
among the different behavior and cognitive therapies.  But there's
more too -- the education folk are making some very important
inroads into the RFT work.  I recently received a manuscript from
Chris Ninness on a beautiful application of RFT to math education.
In short, I think we need to encourage integration, not division.
We are way too small a group to start focusing on where the differences lie.

So, yes, let's have a neighborhoods meeting at Sweden -- I think this
very important.

Dermot








Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

Sorry -- re. advanced RFT workshop -- Yvonne is involved in a workshop
on education and RFT.  Don't know if it's submitted yet -- is it too late?
A version of it is running at ABA too.

Dermot





Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

John P. Forsyth, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Faculty Director, Anxiety Disorders Research Program
Research Scientist, Center for Stress and Anxiety Disorders
University at Albany, SUNY
Department of Psychology, SS369
1400 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12222 U.S.A.
Ph: (518) 442-4862
Fax: (518) 442-4867
email: forsyth@...
WEB: http://www.albany.edu/~forsyth

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Fox [mailto:eric.fox@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 5:05 PM
To: 'rft@yahoogroups.com'; acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ACT_RFT_World_Conference] RE: [RFT] Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] ACT and RFT

Steve wrote:

To me, ACT, RFT, contextualism, the new behavioral psychology that comes from all of them, are all one world.  . . . I think we should have a conversation session on this "what is the neighborhood"  issue at Sweden. I suspect we may need to find an umbrella name actually. ACT really is more of a model than a specific technology but the name and use pulls for its technological meaning. I think there is an umbrella forming that could include lots of folks (like many of those "non-ACT" folks giving invited addresses in Sweden ... see Kelly's other post). The very fact that these folks are coming is an small indication that this might be so.

______________________________________________________

 

Perhaps "contextual psychology" is an umbrella term we should all start using and promoting more actively? I'm not aware of any other perspectives that have a real strong claim to the term at the moment, and it seems to accurately characterize the functional contextualism/RFT/ACT approach to behavior.

 

To really stake a claim to the term, a professional organization or journal or something incorporating the name may need to be established. Or I could just start a contextual psychology web site. :)

 

Incidentally, one of the projects (read: I'll be looking for grant money for this) I would like to pursue post-graduation is the establishment of an electronic academic journal that takes full advantage of modern internet technologies and hypertext to reduce production time and costs, increase publication turnaround time, encourage exploration of related research, etc. Perhaps a "Journal of Contextual Psychology" would be useful?

 

-Eric

 

Eric J. Fox, M.A.
Exploratory Phase Coordinator
Preparing Future Faculty Program
Graduate College
Arizona State University
Phone: (480) 965-7080
Fax: (480) 965-5158
Email: eric.fox@...
http://www.ericfox.net
http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hayes [mailto:hayes@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:53 AM
To: acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com; rft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RFT] Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] ACT and RFT

This is of relevance to both the ACT and RFT list,
so I'll double post

Two small tweaks of Kelly's response. Re:

When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.

That's mostly so, but we have to add that arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARR)
is itself verbal behavior (said in another way, verbal behavior
framing events relationally) and AARR is not at its base regulated by contextual cues that result from AARR (ie., it has to start somewhere else, logically)

Which takes me to the second tweak. I've been cautious about the language of
"relational stimulus control" because it encourages the idea that the relations are
in the stimuli. A key to relational frame theory is that AARR is arbitrarily
applicable -- thus the relatedness of stimuli are not solely in the stimuli per se but in
additional sources of contextual control (even in the case of pragmatic verbal analysis ...
a technical point that is too difficult to cover in a short email). From fairly early days we toyed with
the idea of calling all of this "relational" instead of "verbal" (e.g., Hayes & Hayes, 1992, --
the American Psychologist piece). I'm OK with ambiguity on this point since it is
mere terminology. Either side has problems. "Verbal" confuses RFT with Skinner
and with lay use. "Relational" confuses RFT with traditional relational learning. (To see the
latter read the commentaries on the book by McIlvane/Salzinger/Malott/Osbourne/Spradlin
and our response that is coming out in Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
Should be out by ABA.) I suspect both terms will be used indefinitely, and my pragmatic
heart says that is OK -- just fit the use to the audience.

This thread reminds me of why I have thought for a while that the RFT and ACT lists
need to be combined. Someone posted a comment when I asked about that issue to the
effect of "keep them separate. ACT is not that much based on RFT. RFT is more
of an arcane theory that is in the mix because the originators of ACT also worked on it."
Conversely, Dermot posted a comment something like
"to get RFT, you need to get ACT" and someone
else said "to get ACT, you need to get RFT."

To me, ACT, RFT, contextualism,
the new behavioral psychology that comes from all of them, are all one world. Thus the
title of the Sweden conference. You can enter into that world and explore its neighborhoods
but sooner or later you will realize that if you are in the applied side, you need the basic
theory; if you are in the basic theory, you will realize you need application; in either area
you will realize you need the philosophy. So initially, the view might be "ACT is its own world ... RFT is in there because the originators of ACT also worked on it."
Later, however, questions will naturally arise (like the one that started this thread)
that can only be addressed by having both.

RFT is difficult to get ... but once you get it,
it is simple. What is hard about it is its radical functionalism / contextualism. Guess what:
that is what is hard about ACT too, and RFT and ACT both help each other because they
are like key multiple exemplars from the same contextualistic space (itself an
RFT-sensible idea). As we add other
applied programs from that same space (e.g., prevention interventions;
media; attitude change; education; etc) I predict that we will find additional
examplars that people need to really get what this neighborhood is about.
Learning RFT is not easy, I admit. I do believe, however,
that is it not possible to be fully competent in ACT without some grasp of it ...
because without it you inevitably divide the world differently, as based on lay or other
language distinctions, and that in turn leaks into therapy.

At Sweden there will be a session
by Vijay Shankar and Niklas Torneke, two practitioners with excellent grasp
of RFT, on the clinical implications of RFT. I would encourage clinical folks who come to
the Sweden conference to lean into the philosophy, basic theory, and other applied
RFT offerings -- not just ACT as such.

I think we should have a conversation session on this "what is the neighborhood"  issue at Sweden.
I suspect we may need to find an umbrella name actually. ACT really is more of
a model than a specific technology but the name and use pulls for its technological
meaning. I think there is an umbrella forming that could include lots of folks
(like many of those "non-ACT" folks giving invited addresses in Sweden ... see Kelly's other post).
The very fact that these folks are coming is an small indication that this might be so.

One problem with the "contextualistic world" view of the ACT / RFT relation
needs to be admitted: if it is too much "in your face" it makes entry into that
world seem too daunting. Also, if too few people's hands are on it, it looks
too narcissistic. The latter problem is being relieved by the wonderful way
that ACT / RFT is being taken over and owned by the whole
world ACT / RFT community. I think this developmental process
can't be forced ... but I see clear signs (the Sweden conference itself is one)
that more folks are seeing the whole neighborhood. It is the whole neighborhood
that makes what is happening here the sort of thing that could be of
fundamental importance.

- S

Steve Hayes

Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D. wrote:

mind and defusion
in an _attempt_ to clarify...."fusion" and "mind" are ways we talk about
verbal processes. This is really rft stuff as Jonathan suggests. When we
say verbal in ACT (really RFT) we mean relational stimulus control. That is
a _stimulating_event_ is said to be verbal if the event has at least some of
its psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes. When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.
This is a very special meaning of verbal--it is our own. It is not what
Skinner meant by verbal. It is way far from what the lay public means by
verbal. Why? We think that there is something special about verbal
behavior. Following Skinner's analysis, verbal ends up resolving to
discriminated operants where the contingencies are arbitrarily organized by
another organism. the rat pressing the lever ends up being verbal. In a
sense, this is absolutely right. The piece that was not available to
Skinner--having worked the theory out by 1945--was the rising tide of
phenomena that started out under the umbrella of stimulus equivalence and
now has expanded far beyond (thankfully). What Skinner intuitively
understood, but had no technical analysis of, was the ways that arbitrarily
applicable, arbitrarily applied relational responding might generalize,
massively propagate, and become more complex, among humans, given a history
of multiple exemplar training.
So, something that looks like a conditioned response like fear (I.e.,
respondent) could be verbal in the sense that it is under antecedent control
of an event that acquired the eliciting functions through relational
learning processes.
So, to come back around to the discussion a little anyway--comparison and
evaluation are some of mind's primary occupations, but since comparison and
evaluation are dominantly verbal activities for human subjects, they do not
in any way exhaust verbal. verbal = derived relational responding--this
essentially means that _any_ psychological function an event could have
could be established through relational means and be verbal (using our
definition), and as a corollary, _any_ response could be verbal in the sense
that it is under this sort of stimulus control.
Defusion means the lessening of the domination of specific verbal functions.
We know that under certain conditions, verbal functions will dominate over
directly and immediately experienced contingencies--when the dentist says
sit still, we respond to "sit still" even thought the directly experienced
contingencies "say" get the hell away.
so, from my talk in Reno last summer:
.Fusion: certain verbal functions of an event dominate over other directly
and indirectly available functions
.
.Defusion: is the process whereby these verbal functions become less
dominant, and others become available
well, at least that is my current best thinking on this matter.
It is not that verbal is the enemy. verbal also gives us valued action
extended over long time frames and under the control of "defective"
contingencies. This is why I highlight the fact that _certain_ verbal
functions dominate over _both_ directly _and_ indirectly available
functions. This will be very much present in my technical analysis of
values at the world conference. (OK, JT this morning right now--I'll write
and send the abstract.)
ACT seeks to undermine the domination of certain verbal functions, when the
domination of those functions restricts the client's (or my) ability to
participate fully in a valued life.
hmmmm.....somehow I doubt if that clarified anything at all....so it
goes...fun anyway.
k
Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D.
205 Peabody Building
Psychology Department
University of Mississippi
University, MS 38655
Office (662) 915-5256
Cell (662) 816-5189
Fax (662) 915-5398
kwilson@...
http://www.olemiss.edu/working/kwilson/kwilson/UniversityWebPage/Kelly%20Wil
son.htm
"One draught of Lethe for a world of pain?
An easy bargain; yet I keep the thorn,
To keep the rose."
John Erskine (1906)
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Kanter" <jonkan@...>
To: <acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] not all fusion needs to be
cognitive

In reply to Andrei:
When I said emotion mind and reasonable mind are cognitive fusion and thus
map on to self-as-content, it perhaps would have been more straightforward
to not equate them both with cognitive fusion but instead simply state
that they exemplify self-as-content. As you suggest, equating emotion mind
with cognitive fusion requires some explanation.
As you suggest, I actually do think more in terms of fusion with private
events as a general category than cognitive vs. emotional fusion. We don't
really want to do a microscopic analysis of "was that a thought?" or "was
that a feeling?". Without agreeing with cognitive primacy people like
Kihlstrom, I think we can say that any experience of emotion will have a
verbal component, at least historically, as in learning to label the
emotion, etc. The bidirectional nature of verbal stimuli, and
transformation of function, suggests that any given "thought" may have
respondent (emotional) qualities, and any given "emotion" may have verbal
qualities. It is this constantly active, thinking, feeling, whirling
(monkey) "mind" we try to defuse from/accept. It is a bit of a jumble.
That said, if we are doing ACT traditionally from start to finish, the
cognitive defusion/deliteralization exercises are distinct from and come
before the emotional acceptance exercises, and that is because this
distinctions and the staging are often useful. We deliteralize/defuse from
thoughts in order to faciliate the non-evaluative experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective. In DBT, this experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective is "wise mind," not "emotion mind,"
while when you are fused and not accepting and your emotions are in
control, you are in "emotion" mind.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

* Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Andrei Sachs wrote:

I see a problem with the mapping of "emotion mind" onto cognitive
fusion, although it makes sense to do so with "reasonable mind". In
ACT, while we talk about private events in a broad sense to include more
than cognitions, when we talk about fusion or defusion it invariably
becomes "cognitive". Is the implication that underlying all emotion is
a conscious appraisal process at work? Emotion theorists such as Zajonc
and others have made a persuasive case for pre-cognitive judgments in
emotions and situations where emotion has "primacy". Findings from
neural science from LeDoux among others also point to dual pathways into
the limbic system, ergo supporting the phenomenon of primacy of emotion.
If this were so, wouldn't we need to consider "emotional fusion" and
apply defusion interventions as appropriately? Isn't DBT about defusion
from emotion? If I feel it must be true... Separately, if sensations can
be viewed as a separate system from subjective experience, perhaps we
could consider "interoceptive fusion"! Andrei

 ----- Original Message -----
From: J. Kanter
To: acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] DBT versus ACT: an

inconsistency

 Some more thoughts on mindfulness and "wise mind" in DBT vs.

acceptance

 and distancing in ACT:
As Pat said, it is mostly a mistake to equate the three senses of self
in ACT with the three types of mind in DBT. They don't map too well,
although there is some overlap.
"Reasonable mind" and "emotion mind" are basically examples of

cognitive

 fusion so they map onto self-as-content. DBT is much more judgemental
about this stuff than is ACT: reasonable mind is generally seen as

good;

 however it is hard to act from reasonable mind when one is emotional.

A

 certain amount of emotion mind is also o.k. however BPD clients are in

it

 much too often. Basically, reasonable mind is when self-as-content

works

 and emotion mind is when it doesn't.
"Wise mind" maps onto self-as-context and in fact many of the DBT
mindfulness techniques are similar to ACT techniques and metaphors in

this

 stage. When I was learning DBT I often came in to group therapist

meetings

 with ACT exercises and they were always well received. As Mark said,

the

 "how" and "what" DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT, and have

a

 similar feel. I'm sure Steve and Marsha cite at least some common

sources

 to these aspects of treatment.
That is, DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT at least at the

level

 of technique, with some minor changes in language to fit the rest of

the

 treatment. For example, I agree with J.T. that the use of the term

"wise

 mind" can be problematic in ACT if there is a history of using "mind"

to

 represent cognitive fusion, as in "thank your mind for that." The term
"mind" is so loaded with meaning in our culture; the ACT usage

undermines

 and exploits this while DBT does not challenge the common usage. OF
course, we don't want to define our treatments by our terminology; ACT

can

 be done without using the term "mind" and still be ACT.
At a theoretical level, however, I think there are some problems with

the

 integration. The ACT approach is so completely theoretically and
philosophically consistent that, when DBT is viewed through an ACT

lense,

 it falls apart a bit. The DBT emphasis on dialetics, for example, I

think

 unnecessarily comlicates things; ACT simplifies. For example, "wise

mind"

 is described as a dialectical integration of "emotion" and

"reasonable"

 mind, as wise mind "depends upon the integration of all ways of

knowing

 something." The term "integration" is strange and doesn't quite work

in

 this context but is in keeping with the idea of the dialectic, which

of

 course is impoprtant to DBT. The ACT distinction between selves, to

me,

 and the emphasis on self-as-context is much more straightforward and

leads

 more directly to clinical techniques.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

 * Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, joseph_ciarrochi wrote:
> After this discussion, I have to agree with the doubts. The wise

mind

 > concept certainly seems to confuse things a bit, and probably should
> not be used in an act intervention. It would probably take four
> sessions to distinguish between the different uses of "mind" (and

the

 > word machines will be overheating).
>
> There is one aspect of DBT I do think is useful and completely
> consistent with ACT. As Mark W. mentioned, DBT does an excellent job
> of breaking mindfulness down into component skills (the what and how
> skills). I know this structure is added to help the really difficult
> clients. But, as someone who suffers from monkey brain

(mindlessness),

 > I also find it useful to have this structure (maybe I am a difficult
> client). I think other "normals" will appreciate it too.
>
> Joseph C.
>
> ps. can any of you budhists tell me the origin of "monkey brain." I
> can't find any text that refers to it, but I am pretty sure it is a
> buddhist idea. I think it refers to this mindless bouncing around

from

 > one thing to the next. The opposite of one-mindedness.
>
>
>
>
> --- In acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com, John

Blackledge

 > <jtandcyndy@e...> wrote:
> > Regarding Joseph's original post:
> > At a technique level, I wonder if the "wise mind" concept might
> confuse things a bit if used in ACT. It carries (at least for me)

the

 > connotation of rationality, logic, etc--all things typically
> associated with the word machine we're trying to unhook ACT clients
> from. I'm sure my caricature of wise mind here differs from the
> proper way DBT therapists use it, but I'm simply concerned that to

use

 > the phrase in a therapy where "mind" is something to step back and
> unhook from in problematic situations might breed confusion rather
> than clarity--regardless of how carefully the distinction between
> "mind" as generally discussed in ACT and "wise mind" is presented to
> the client.
> >
> > Original message attached.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 >
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/uetFAA/wQ50lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ACT_RFT_World_Conference-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Eric J. Fox, M.A.
Exploratory Phase Coordinator
Preparing Future Faculty Program
Graduate College
Arizona State University
Phone: (480) 965-7080
Fax: (480) 965-5158
Email: eric.fox@...
http://www.ericfox.net
http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hayes [mailto:hayes@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:53 AM
To: acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com; rft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RFT] Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] ACT and RFT

This is of relevance to both the ACT and RFT list,
so I'll double post

Two small tweaks of Kelly's response. Re:

When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.

That's mostly so, but we have to add that arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARR)
is itself verbal behavior (said in another way, verbal behavior
framing events relationally) and AARR is not at its base regulated by contextual cues that result from AARR (ie., it has to start somewhere else, logically)

Which takes me to the second tweak. I've been cautious about the language of
"relational stimulus control" because it encourages the idea that the relations are
in the stimuli. A key to relational frame theory is that AARR is arbitrarily
applicable -- thus the relatedness of stimuli are not solely in the stimuli per se but in
additional sources of contextual control (even in the case of pragmatic verbal analysis ...
a technical point that is too difficult to cover in a short email). From fairly early days we toyed with
the idea of calling all of this "relational" instead of "verbal" (e.g., Hayes & Hayes, 1992, --
the American Psychologist piece). I'm OK with ambiguity on this point since it is
mere terminology. Either side has problems. "Verbal" confuses RFT with Skinner
and with lay use. "Relational" confuses RFT with traditional relational learning. (To see the
latter read the commentaries on the book by McIlvane/Salzinger/Malott/Osbourne/Spradlin
and our response that is coming out in Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
Should be out by ABA.) I suspect both terms will be used indefinitely, and my pragmatic
heart says that is OK -- just fit the use to the audience.

This thread reminds me of why I have thought for a while that the RFT and ACT lists
need to be combined. Someone posted a comment when I asked about that issue to the
effect of "keep them separate. ACT is not that much based on RFT. RFT is more
of an arcane theory that is in the mix because the originators of ACT also worked on it."
Conversely, Dermot posted a comment something like
"to get RFT, you need to get ACT" and someone
else said "to get ACT, you need to get RFT."

To me, ACT, RFT, contextualism,
the new behavioral psychology that comes from all of them, are all one world. Thus the
title of the Sweden conference. You can enter into that world and explore its neighborhoods
but sooner or later you will realize that if you are in the applied side, you need the basic
theory; if you are in the basic theory, you will realize you need application; in either area
you will realize you need the philosophy. So initially, the view might be "ACT is its own world ... RFT is in there because the originators of ACT also worked on it."
Later, however, questions will naturally arise (like the one that started this thread)
that can only be addressed by having both.

RFT is difficult to get ... but once you get it,
it is simple. What is hard about it is its radical functionalism / contextualism. Guess what:
that is what is hard about ACT too, and RFT and ACT both help each other because they
are like key multiple exemplars from the same contextualistic space (itself an
RFT-sensible idea). As we add other
applied programs from that same space (e.g., prevention interventions;
media; attitude change; education; etc) I predict that we will find additional
examplars that people need to really get what this neighborhood is about.
Learning RFT is not easy, I admit. I do believe, however,
that is it not possible to be fully competent in ACT without some grasp of it ...
because without it you inevitably divide the world differently, as based on lay or other
language distinctions, and that in turn leaks into therapy.

At Sweden there will be a session
by Vijay Shankar and Niklas Torneke, two practitioners with excellent grasp
of RFT, on the clinical implications of RFT. I would encourage clinical folks who come to
the Sweden conference to lean into the philosophy, basic theory, and other applied
RFT offerings -- not just ACT as such.

I think we should have a conversation session on this "what is the neighborhood"  issue at Sweden.
I suspect we may need to find an umbrella name actually. ACT really is more of
a model than a specific technology but the name and use pulls for its technological
meaning. I think there is an umbrella forming that could include lots of folks
(like many of those "non-ACT" folks giving invited addresses in Sweden ... see Kelly's other post).
The very fact that these folks are coming is an small indication that this might be so.

One problem with the "contextualistic world" view of the ACT / RFT relation
needs to be admitted: if it is too much "in your face" it makes entry into that
world seem too daunting. Also, if too few people's hands are on it, it looks
too narcissistic. The latter problem is being relieved by the wonderful way
that ACT / RFT is being taken over and owned by the whole
world ACT / RFT community. I think this developmental process
can't be forced ... but I see clear signs (the Sweden conference itself is one)
that more folks are seeing the whole neighborhood. It is the whole neighborhood
that makes what is happening here the sort of thing that could be of
fundamental importance.

- S

Steve Hayes

Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D. wrote:

mind and defusion
in an _attempt_ to clarify...."fusion" and "mind" are ways we talk about
verbal processes. This is really rft stuff as Jonathan suggests. When we
say verbal in ACT (really RFT) we mean relational stimulus control. That is
a _stimulating_event_ is said to be verbal if the event has at least some of
its psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes. When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.
This is a very special meaning of verbal--it is our own. It is not what
Skinner meant by verbal. It is way far from what the lay public means by
verbal. Why? We think that there is something special about verbal
behavior. Following Skinner's analysis, verbal ends up resolving to
discriminated operants where the contingencies are arbitrarily organized by
another organism. the rat pressing the lever ends up being verbal. In a
sense, this is absolutely right. The piece that was not available to
Skinner--having worked the theory out by 1945--was the rising tide of
phenomena that started out under the umbrella of stimulus equivalence and
now has expanded far beyond (thankfully). What Skinner intuitively
understood, but had no technical analysis of, was the ways that arbitrarily
applicable, arbitrarily applied relational responding might generalize,
massively propagate, and become more complex, among humans, given a history
of multiple exemplar training.
So, something that looks like a conditioned response like fear (I.e.,
respondent) could be verbal in the sense that it is under antecedent control
of an event that acquired the eliciting functions through relational
learning processes.
So, to come back around to the discussion a little anyway--comparison and
evaluation are some of mind's primary occupations, but since comparison and
evaluation are dominantly verbal activities for human subjects, they do not
in any way exhaust verbal. verbal = derived relational responding--this
essentially means that _any_ psychological function an event could have
could be established through relational means and be verbal (using our
definition), and as a corollary, _any_ response could be verbal in the sense
that it is under this sort of stimulus control.
Defusion means the lessening of the domination of specific verbal functions.
We know that under certain conditions, verbal functions will dominate over
directly and immediately experienced contingencies--when the dentist says
sit still, we respond to "sit still" even thought the directly experienced
contingencies "say" get the hell away.
so, from my talk in Reno last summer:
.Fusion: certain verbal functions of an event dominate over other directly
and indirectly available functions
.
.Defusion: is the process whereby these verbal functions become less
dominant, and others become available
well, at least that is my current best thinking on this matter.
It is not that verbal is the enemy. verbal also gives us valued action
extended over long time frames and under the control of "defective"
contingencies. This is why I highlight the fact that _certain_ verbal
functions dominate over _both_ directly _and_ indirectly available
functions. This will be very much present in my technical analysis of
values at the world conference. (OK, JT this morning right now--I'll write
and send the abstract.)
ACT seeks to undermine the domination of certain verbal functions, when the
domination of those functions restricts the client's (or my) ability to
participate fully in a valued life.
hmmmm.....somehow I doubt if that clarified anything at all....so it
goes...fun anyway.
k
Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D.
205 Peabody Building
Psychology Department
University of Mississippi
University, MS 38655
Office (662) 915-5256
Cell (662) 816-5189
Fax (662) 915-5398
kwilson@...
http://www.olemiss.edu/working/kwilson/kwilson/UniversityWebPage/Kelly%20Wil
son.htm
"One draught of Lethe for a world of pain?
An easy bargain; yet I keep the thorn,
To keep the rose."
John Erskine (1906)
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Kanter" <jonkan@...>
To: <acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] not all fusion needs to be
cognitive

In reply to Andrei:
When I said emotion mind and reasonable mind are cognitive fusion and thus
map on to self-as-content, it perhaps would have been more straightforward
to not equate them both with cognitive fusion but instead simply state
that they exemplify self-as-content. As you suggest, equating emotion mind
with cognitive fusion requires some explanation.
As you suggest, I actually do think more in terms of fusion with private
events as a general category than cognitive vs. emotional fusion. We don't
really want to do a microscopic analysis of "was that a thought?" or "was
that a feeling?". Without agreeing with cognitive primacy people like
Kihlstrom, I think we can say that any experience of emotion will have a
verbal component, at least historically, as in learning to label the
emotion, etc. The bidirectional nature of verbal stimuli, and
transformation of function, suggests that any given "thought" may have
respondent (emotional) qualities, and any given "emotion" may have verbal
qualities. It is this constantly active, thinking, feeling, whirling
(monkey) "mind" we try to defuse from/accept. It is a bit of a jumble.
That said, if we are doing ACT traditionally from start to finish, the
cognitive defusion/deliteralization exercises are distinct from and come
before the emotional acceptance exercises, and that is because this
distinctions and the staging are often useful. We deliteralize/defuse from
thoughts in order to faciliate the non-evaluative experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective. In DBT, this experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective is "wise mind," not "emotion mind,"
while when you are fused and not accepting and your emotions are in
control, you are in "emotion" mind.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

* Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Andrei Sachs wrote:

I see a problem with the mapping of "emotion mind" onto cognitive
fusion, although it makes sense to do so with "reasonable mind". In
ACT, while we talk about private events in a broad sense to include more
than cognitions, when we talk about fusion or defusion it invariably
becomes "cognitive". Is the implication that underlying all emotion is
a conscious appraisal process at work? Emotion theorists such as Zajonc
and others have made a persuasive case for pre-cognitive judgments in
emotions and situations where emotion has "primacy". Findings from
neural science from LeDoux among others also point to dual pathways into
the limbic system, ergo supporting the phenomenon of primacy of emotion.
If this were so, wouldn't we need to consider "emotional fusion" and
apply defusion interventions as appropriately? Isn't DBT about defusion
from emotion? If I feel it must be true... Separately, if sensations can
be viewed as a separate system from subjective experience, perhaps we
could consider "interoceptive fusion"! Andrei

 ----- Original Message -----
From: J. Kanter
To: acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] DBT versus ACT: an

inconsistency

Some more thoughts on mindfulness and "wise mind" in DBT vs.

acceptance

 and distancing in ACT:
As Pat said, it is mostly a mistake to equate the three senses of self
in ACT with the three types of mind in DBT. They don't map too well,
although there is some overlap.
"Reasonable mind" and "emotion mind" are basically examples of

cognitive

 fusion so they map onto self-as-content. DBT is much more judgemental
about this stuff than is ACT: reasonable mind is generally seen as

good;

 however it is hard to act from reasonable mind when one is emotional.

A

 certain amount of emotion mind is also o.k. however BPD clients are in

it

 much too often. Basically, reasonable mind is when self-as-content

works

 and emotion mind is when it doesn't.
"Wise mind" maps onto self-as-context and in fact many of the DBT
mindfulness techniques are similar to ACT techniques and metaphors in

this

 stage. When I was learning DBT I often came in to group therapist

meetings

 with ACT exercises and they were always well received. As Mark said,

the

 "how" and "what" DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT, and have

a

 similar feel. I'm sure Steve and Marsha cite at least some common

sources

 to these aspects of treatment.
That is, DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT at least at the

level

 of technique, with some minor changes in language to fit the rest of

the

 treatment. For example, I agree with J.T. that the use of the term

"wise

 mind" can be problematic in ACT if there is a history of using "mind"

to

 represent cognitive fusion, as in "thank your mind for that." The term
"mind" is so loaded with meaning in our culture; the ACT usage

undermines

 and exploits this while DBT does not challenge the common usage. OF
course, we don't want to define our treatments by our terminology; ACT

can

 be done without using the term "mind" and still be ACT.
At a theoretical level, however, I think there are some problems with

the

 integration. The ACT approach is so completely theoretically and
philosophically consistent that, when DBT is viewed through an ACT

lense,

 it falls apart a bit. The DBT emphasis on dialetics, for example, I

think

 unnecessarily comlicates things; ACT simplifies. For example, "wise

mind"

 is described as a dialectical integration of "emotion" and

"reasonable"

 mind, as wise mind "depends upon the integration of all ways of

knowing

 something." The term "integration" is strange and doesn't quite work

in

 this context but is in keeping with the idea of the dialectic, which

of

 course is impoprtant to DBT. The ACT distinction between selves, to

me,

 and the emphasis on self-as-context is much more straightforward and

leads

 more directly to clinical techniques.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

 * Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, joseph_ciarrochi wrote:
> After this discussion, I have to agree with the doubts. The wise

mind

 > concept certainly seems to confuse things a bit, and probably should
> not be used in an act intervention. It would probably take four
> sessions to distinguish between the different uses of "mind" (and

the

 > word machines will be overheating).
>
> There is one aspect of DBT I do think is useful and completely
> consistent with ACT. As Mark W. mentioned, DBT does an excellent job
> of breaking mindfulness down into component skills (the what and how
> skills). I know this structure is added to help the really difficult
> clients. But, as someone who suffers from monkey brain

(mindlessness),

 > I also find it useful to have this structure (maybe I am a difficult
> client). I think other "normals" will appreciate it too.
>
> Joseph C.
>
> ps. can any of you budhists tell me the origin of "monkey brain." I
> can't find any text that refers to it, but I am pretty sure it is a
> buddhist idea. I think it refers to this mindless bouncing around

from

 > one thing to the next. The opposite of one-mindedness.
>
>
>
>
> --- In acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com, John

Blackledge

 > <jtandcyndy@e...> wrote:
> > Regarding Joseph's original post:
> > At a technique level, I wonder if the "wise mind" concept might
> confuse things a bit if used in ACT. It carries (at least for me)

the

 > connotation of rationality, logic, etc--all things typically
> associated with the word machine we're trying to unhook ACT clients
> from. I'm sure my caricature of wise mind here differs from the
> proper way DBT therapists use it, but I'm simply concerned that to

use

 > the phrase in a therapy where "mind" is something to step back and
> unhook from in problematic situations might breed confusion rather
> than clarity--regardless of how carefully the distinction between
> "mind" as generally discussed in ACT and "wise mind" is presented to
> the client.
> >
> > Original message attached.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 >
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/uetFAA/wQ50lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.

mind and defusion
in an _attempt_ to clarify...."fusion" and "mind" are ways we talk about
verbal processes. This is really rft stuff as Jonathan suggests. When we
say verbal in ACT (really RFT) we mean relational stimulus control. That is
a _stimulating_event_ is said to be verbal if the event has at least some of
its psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes. When we say _a_behavior_ is verbal, we simply mean that the
behavior is at least partially under the contextual control of events that
have their psychological functions as result of derived relational learning
processes.
This is a very special meaning of verbal--it is our own. It is not what
Skinner meant by verbal. It is way far from what the lay public means by
verbal. Why? We think that there is something special about verbal
behavior. Following Skinner's analysis, verbal ends up resolving to
discriminated operants where the contingencies are arbitrarily organized by
another organism. the rat pressing the lever ends up being verbal. In a
sense, this is absolutely right. The piece that was not available to
Skinner--having worked the theory out by 1945--was the rising tide of
phenomena that started out under the umbrella of stimulus equivalence and
now has expanded far beyond (thankfully). What Skinner intuitively
understood, but had no technical analysis of, was the ways that arbitrarily
applicable, arbitrarily applied relational responding might generalize,
massively propagate, and become more complex, among humans, given a history
of multiple exemplar training.
So, something that looks like a conditioned response like fear (I.e.,
respondent) could be verbal in the sense that it is under antecedent control
of an event that acquired the eliciting functions through relational
learning processes.
So, to come back around to the discussion a little anyway--comparison and
evaluation are some of mind's primary occupations, but since comparison and
evaluation are dominantly verbal activities for human subjects, they do not
in any way exhaust verbal. verbal = derived relational responding--this
essentially means that _any_ psychological function an event could have
could be established through relational means and be verbal (using our
definition), and as a corollary, _any_ response could be verbal in the sense
that it is under this sort of stimulus control.
Defusion means the lessening of the domination of specific verbal functions.
We know that under certain conditions, verbal functions will dominate over
directly and immediately experienced contingencies--when the dentist says
sit still, we respond to "sit still" even thought the directly experienced
contingencies "say" get the hell away.
so, from my talk in Reno last summer:
.Fusion: certain verbal functions of an event dominate over other directly
and indirectly available functions
.
.Defusion: is the process whereby these verbal functions become less
dominant, and others become available
well, at least that is my current best thinking on this matter.
It is not that verbal is the enemy. verbal also gives us valued action
extended over long time frames and under the control of "defective"
contingencies. This is why I highlight the fact that _certain_ verbal
functions dominate over _both_ directly _and_ indirectly available
functions. This will be very much present in my technical analysis of
values at the world conference. (OK, JT this morning right now--I'll write
and send the abstract.)
ACT seeks to undermine the domination of certain verbal functions, when the
domination of those functions restricts the client's (or my) ability to
participate fully in a valued life.
hmmmm.....somehow I doubt if that clarified anything at all....so it
goes...fun anyway.
k
Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D.
205 Peabody Building
Psychology Department
University of Mississippi
University, MS 38655
Office (662) 915-5256
Cell (662) 816-5189
Fax (662) 915-5398
kwilson@...
http://www.olemiss.edu/working/kwilson/kwilson/UniversityWebPage/Kelly%20Wil
son.htm
"One draught of Lethe for a world of pain?
An easy bargain; yet I keep the thorn,
To keep the rose."
John Erskine (1906)
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Kanter" <jonkan@...>
To: <acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] not all fusion needs to be
cognitive

In reply to Andrei:
When I said emotion mind and reasonable mind are cognitive fusion and thus
map on to self-as-content, it perhaps would have been more straightforward
to not equate them both with cognitive fusion but instead simply state
that they exemplify self-as-content. As you suggest, equating emotion mind
with cognitive fusion requires some explanation.
As you suggest, I actually do think more in terms of fusion with private
events as a general category than cognitive vs. emotional fusion. We don't
really want to do a microscopic analysis of "was that a thought?" or "was
that a feeling?". Without agreeing with cognitive primacy people like
Kihlstrom, I think we can say that any experience of emotion will have a
verbal component, at least historically, as in learning to label the
emotion, etc. The bidirectional nature of verbal stimuli, and
transformation of function, suggests that any given "thought" may have
respondent (emotional) qualities, and any given "emotion" may have verbal
qualities. It is this constantly active, thinking, feeling, whirling
(monkey) "mind" we try to defuse from/accept. It is a bit of a jumble.
That said, if we are doing ACT traditionally from start to finish, the
cognitive defusion/deliteralization exercises are distinct from and come
before the emotional acceptance exercises, and that is because this
distinctions and the staging are often useful. We deliteralize/defuse from
thoughts in order to faciliate the non-evaluative experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective. In DBT, this experience of emotion
from a self-as-context perspective is "wise mind," not "emotion mind,"
while when you are fused and not accepting and your emotions are in
control, you are in "emotion" mind.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

* Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Andrei Sachs wrote:

I see a problem with the mapping of "emotion mind" onto cognitive
fusion, although it makes sense to do so with "reasonable mind". In
ACT, while we talk about private events in a broad sense to include more
than cognitions, when we talk about fusion or defusion it invariably
becomes "cognitive". Is the implication that underlying all emotion is
a conscious appraisal process at work? Emotion theorists such as Zajonc
and others have made a persuasive case for pre-cognitive judgments in
emotions and situations where emotion has "primacy". Findings from
neural science from LeDoux among others also point to dual pathways into
the limbic system, ergo supporting the phenomenon of primacy of emotion.
If this were so, wouldn't we need to consider "emotional fusion" and
apply defusion interventions as appropriately? Isn't DBT about defusion
from emotion? If I feel it must be true... Separately, if sensations can
be viewed as a separate system from subjective experience, perhaps we
could consider "interoceptive fusion"! Andrei

 ----- Original Message -----
From: J. Kanter
To: acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] DBT versus ACT: an

inconsistency

Some more thoughts on mindfulness and "wise mind" in DBT vs.

acceptance

 and distancing in ACT:
As Pat said, it is mostly a mistake to equate the three senses of self
in ACT with the three types of mind in DBT. They don't map too well,
although there is some overlap.
"Reasonable mind" and "emotion mind" are basically examples of

cognitive

 fusion so they map onto self-as-content. DBT is much more judgemental
about this stuff than is ACT: reasonable mind is generally seen as

good;

 however it is hard to act from reasonable mind when one is emotional.

A

 certain amount of emotion mind is also o.k. however BPD clients are in

it

 much too often. Basically, reasonable mind is when self-as-content

works

 and emotion mind is when it doesn't.
"Wise mind" maps onto self-as-context and in fact many of the DBT
mindfulness techniques are similar to ACT techniques and metaphors in

this

 stage. When I was learning DBT I often came in to group therapist

meetings

 with ACT exercises and they were always well received. As Mark said,

the

 "how" and "what" DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT, and have

a

 similar feel. I'm sure Steve and Marsha cite at least some common

sources

 to these aspects of treatment.
That is, DBT skills are easily incorporated into ACT at least at the

level

 of technique, with some minor changes in language to fit the rest of

the

 treatment. For example, I agree with J.T. that the use of the term

"wise

 mind" can be problematic in ACT if there is a history of using "mind"

to

 represent cognitive fusion, as in "thank your mind for that." The term
"mind" is so loaded with meaning in our culture; the ACT usage

undermines

 and exploits this while DBT does not challenge the common usage. OF
course, we don't want to define our treatments by our terminology; ACT

can

 be done without using the term "mind" and still be ACT.
At a theoretical level, however, I think there are some problems with

the

 integration. The ACT approach is so completely theoretically and
philosophically consistent that, when DBT is viewed through an ACT

lense,

 it falls apart a bit. The DBT emphasis on dialetics, for example, I

think

 unnecessarily comlicates things; ACT simplifies. For example, "wise

mind"

 is described as a dialectical integration of "emotion" and

"reasonable"

 mind, as wise mind "depends upon the integration of all ways of

knowing

 something." The term "integration" is strange and doesn't quite work

in

 this context but is in keeping with the idea of the dialectic, which

of

 course is impoprtant to DBT. The ACT distinction between selves, to

me,

 and the emphasis on self-as-context is much more straightforward and

leads

 more directly to clinical techniques.
Jonathan
********************************************
Jonathan Kanter, Ph.D.
* Research Associate, Department of Health Services, University of

Washington

 * Health Services Research and Development Service, Mailstop 152
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Puget Sound Health Care System - Seattle Division
1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108
* Ph:(206) 277-1515
* Email: Jonathan.Kanter@... & jonkan@...
********************************************
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, joseph_ciarrochi wrote:
> After this discussion, I have to agree with the doubts. The wise

mind

 > concept certainly seems to confuse things a bit, and probably should
> not be used in an act intervention. It would probably take four
> sessions to distinguish between the different uses of "mind" (and

the

 > word machines will be overheating).
>
> There is one aspect of DBT I do think is useful and completely
> consistent with ACT. As Mark W. mentioned, DBT does an excellent job
> of breaking mindfulness down into component skills (the what and how
> skills). I know this structure is added to help the really difficult
> clients. But, as someone who suffers from monkey brain

(mindlessness),

 > I also find it useful to have this structure (maybe I am a difficult
> client). I think other "normals" will appreciate it too.
>
> Joseph C.
>
> ps. can any of you budhists tell me the origin of "monkey brain." I
> can't find any text that refers to it, but I am pretty sure it is a
> buddhist idea. I think it refers to this mindless bouncing around

from

 > one thing to the next. The opposite of one-mindedness.
>
>
>
>
> --- In acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy@yahoogroups.com, John

Blackledge

 > <jtandcyndy@e...> wrote:
> > Regarding Joseph's original post:
> > At a technique level, I wonder if the "wise mind" concept might
> confuse things a bit if used in ACT. It carries (at least for me)

the

 > connotation of rationality, logic, etc--all things typically
> associated with the word machine we're trying to unhook ACT clients
> from. I'm sure my caricature of wise mind here differs from the
> proper way DBT therapists use it, but I'm simply concerned that to

use

 > the phrase in a therapy where "mind" is something to step back and
> unhook from in problematic situations might breed confusion rather
> than clarity--regardless of how carefully the distinction between
> "mind" as generally discussed in ACT and "wise mind" is presented to
> the client.
> >
> > Original message attached.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 >
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/uetFAA/wQ50lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Just realized that the post below may be confusing.
Neither VB nor Psyscope programs collect the
EEG data -- you need dedicated software for
that (although the program I use for the ERPs
work is written in VB).

The VB and Psyscope software controls the presentation
of stimuli and records responses on a separate PC/mac,
and the programs send electrical impulses to the machine
that collects the EEGs that are translated into markers
so that you can relate the EEG signal to specific
stimulus events.

Apologies for any confusion my last post may have caused.

D.






At 12:59 28/04/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Luis -- if the final bit of your email was referring to my ERPs
>email, that work was done using Visual Basic (I can let you
>have the program if you want it).  Note, however, that Bryan
>successfully interfaced the mac with a polygraph, using
>Psyscope, to measure EEGs.
>
>By the way, you don't have to write code in Visual Basic
>if you use a product called Softwire.   This provides a
>user interface not unlike Psyscope -- clicking and dragging
>and linking icons together etc.
>
>D.
>
>
>
>At 02:29 27/04/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> >Yet again, thanks for all the information.  Yes, I´m totally
> >interested in the paper mentioned by Dr. Dymond; I also love Macs...
> >and we´ve got an old PowerMac 6100 with barely 24 mb of memory, it´s
> >actually PAINFUL (via transformation of stimulus functions I guess,
> >believe me) to run PsyScope on it.  We had to eliminate a couple of
> >things to be able to run the experiments.  But it was worth it, it´s
> >so easy to work with.  Looking forward to the new version, they had
> >said there would be no more PsyScope, but if a new one shows up, it
> >will change the world.  And recording ERPs!!!....
> >I better stop now.
> >LMSM
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>Dermot Barnes-Holmes
>Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
>Department of Psychology
>National University of Ireland, Maynooth
>Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
>Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
>Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
>Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
>Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
>Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

One last thing -- you can run VB on a mac using
RealPC or some other emulator.  Seems to work
fine, but I would avoid using an emulator when
recording reaction times etc. -- when millisecond
accuracy is required (same goes, of course, when
using a mac emulator on a PC).

D.





Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

Luis -- if the final bit of your email was referring to my ERPs
email, that work was done using Visual Basic (I can let you
have the program if you want it).  Note, however, that Bryan
successfully interfaced the mac with a polygraph, using
Psyscope, to measure EEGs.

By the way, you don't have to write code in Visual Basic
if you use a product called Softwire.   This provides a
user interface not unlike Psyscope -- clicking and dragging
and linking icons together etc.

D.



At 02:29 27/04/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Yet again, thanks for all the information.  Yes, I´m totally
>interested in the paper mentioned by Dr. Dymond; I also love Macs...
>and we´ve got an old PowerMac 6100 with barely 24 mb of memory, it´s
>actually PAINFUL (via transformation of stimulus functions I guess,
>believe me) to run PsyScope on it.  We had to eliminate a couple of
>things to be able to run the experiments.  But it was worth it, it´s
>so easy to work with.  Looking forward to the new version, they had
>said there would be no more PsyScope, but if a new one shows up, it
>will change the world.  And recording ERPs!!!....
>I better stop now.
>LMSM
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

Yet again, thanks for all the information.  Yes, I´m totally
interested in the paper mentioned by Dr. Dymond; I also love Macs...
and we´ve got an old PowerMac 6100 with barely 24 mb of memory, it´s
actually PAINFUL (via transformation of stimulus functions I guess,
believe me) to run PsyScope on it.  We had to eliminate a couple of
things to be able to run the experiments.  But it was worth it, it´s
so easy to work with.  Looking forward to the new version, they had
said there would be no more PsyScope, but if a new one shows up, it
will change the world.  And recording ERPs!!!....
I better stop now.
LMSM

>>In the transition,
everything seems to have gotten quieter. I think part of the
reason is that people are posting RFT issues on the ACT list
and there was active discussion about whether to
collapse the two lists into one. (Mixed opinions resulted). <<

I wonder if maybe another post to the ACT list RE:  instructions on
joining the Yahoo RFT group might be warranted.  I know it personally
fell off my radar screen, and I just noticed a day or two ago that I
wasn't receiving RFT list posts any more.  There may be others who
were previously subscribed to both the ACT and RFT lists who made the
same mistake.

--- In rft@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hayes <hayes@u...> wrote:
> I can't see them either ... I don't know why.
>
> The original RFT list was maintained at UNR. It still exists
> actually, but we are moving it to Yahoo. In the transition,
> everything seems to have gotten quieter. I think part of the
> reason is that people are posting RFT issues on the ACT list
> and there was active discussion about whether to
> collapse the two lists into one. (Mixed opinions resulted).
>
> My suggestion: if you have RFT interests, join both
> the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and
> Relational Frame Theory lists at Yahoo.
> Unlike what i see with the RFT group, you can see the
> ACT posts ... and many of these bear on RFT topics.
>
> I will work with Alethea Smith, our old RFT list master, to
> get everyone on the UNR RFT list on to the Yahoo list.
>
> By the way, other supports for RFT research:
>
> Context Press will be publishing a book on Visual Basic
> programming by Mark Dixon and Otto Maclin
> that has prewritten RFT preparations. We are
> hoping to have it available at ABA but if not
> it will be available immediately afterward at
> www.contextpress.com
>
> Also, watch developments at www.relationalframetheory.com.
> We will be working to post more ways of supporting
> RFT work there.
>
> - S
>
> Steve Hayes
> University of Nevada
>
>
> Luis Manuel Silva wrote:
>
> > Dear people @ the RFT group: I´m a student of psychology in
> > Colombia, where we are quietly but strongly trying to build up a
> > community of people interested in RFT and in doing research using
this
> > wonderful theoretical advance.  In the process of gathering
> > information about the theory I arrived to the website and then
happily
> > entered this group, but to my surprise I cannot see earlier
posts... I
> > think it could be very helpful to allow the archives to be seen
by all
> > members, so new people can catch up with the discussions and old
> > members can remember what things are about. I´d like to thank you
very
> > much for your attention.  I´m going
> > to promote this presence of the RFT in the Internet among the
> > interested people in Colombia (not just one or two... :)
> > Greetings
> > Luis Manuel Silva
> > Undergraduate Student - Fifth year.
> > Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

Just a note to say that we have recently collected some lovely priming and
event related potentials (ERPs) data on derived stimulus relations.  It
replicates
and extends the Hayes and Bisset (1998) study.

The EPS data are particularly nice -- beautiful N400 waveforms for the
non-equivalent stimulus pairs.  Presenting this work at ABA -- if you
have an interest in priming and/or ERPs measures of derived relations
make sure to pop along, I'd love to talk to you.

Dermot




Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

Steve's email prompted me to post the following:

Mark Dixon sent me some sample copies of
chapters from his VB book for behavior analysts.

It is simply brilliant -- I wish I had this book a year
ago, when I first starting working with VB.  It is
beautifully written with none of the usual off-putting
material that you find in standard programming text
books.  I recommend it unreservedly to anyone
who needs to construct automated procedures in
basic or applied settings.

I am going to adopt the book as the core text for my final
year VB module here at Maynooth.

By the way, Francisco Cabello, Ian Stewart, Denis O'Hora and I
have a little intro piece on VB about to come out in EAHBB.
You'll be amazed how simple it is to do fairly complex stuff
using VB.

I've run some workshops on VB recently, and I'm happy to
consider doing more (no charge -- just travel and put me up
somewhere warm and dry -- not fussy -- I slept on Ian Stewart's
floor when I did one in Galway -- great for the back!
Hope to be Reno for about 6 weeks this summer (July and
early August), so I could do one or two Stateside relatively
cheap.  Should do one at Sweden, but I'm already doing
two RFT workshops -- pity I can't bi-locate. . .

D.






At 16:52 24/04/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>I can't see them either ... I don't know why.
>
>The original RFT list was maintained at UNR. It still exists
>actually, but we are moving it to Yahoo. In the transition,
>everything seems to have gotten quieter. I think part of the
>reason is that people are posting RFT issues on the ACT list
>and there was active discussion about whether to
>collapse the two lists into one. (Mixed opinions resulted).
>
>My suggestion: if you have RFT interests, join both
>the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and
>Relational Frame Theory lists at Yahoo.
>Unlike what i see with the RFT group, you can see the
>ACT posts ... and many of these bear on RFT topics.
>
>I will work with Alethea Smith, our old RFT list master, to
>get everyone on the UNR RFT list on to the Yahoo list.
>
>By the way, other supports for RFT research:
>
>Context Press will be publishing a book on Visual Basic
>programming by Mark Dixon and Otto Maclin
>that has prewritten RFT preparations. We are
>hoping to have it available at ABA but if not
>it will be available immediately afterward at
><http://www.contextpress.com>www.contextpress.com
>
>Also, watch developments at
><http://www.relationalframetheory.com>www.relationalframetheory.com.
>We will be working to post more ways of supporting
>RFT work there.
>
>- S
>
>Steve Hayes
>University of Nevada
>
>
>Luis Manuel Silva wrote:
>
>>Dear people @ the RFT group: I´m a student of psychology in
>>Colombia, where we are quietly but strongly trying to build up a
>>community of people interested in RFT and in doing research using this
>>wonderful theoretical advance.  In the process of gathering information
>>about the theory I arrived to the website and then happily entered this
>>group, but to my surprise I cannot see earlier posts... I think it could
>>be very helpful to allow the archives to be seen by all members, so new
>>people can catch up with the discussions and old members can remember
>>what things are about. I´d like to thank you very much for your
>>attention.  I´m going
>>to promote this presence of the RFT in the Internet among the interested
>>people in Colombia (not just one or two... 6300e1.jpg
>>Greetings
>>Luis Manuel Silva
>>Undergraduate Student - Fifth year.
>>Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>><mailto:rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>

Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

Thanks for posting this about Mac OSX and PsyScope!  :-)  When it
finally comes out for OSX, even if it's a beta version, I'd love to try
it out!

John E. Dencoff
UNM Dept. of Psychology
laeknir@...

On Friday, April 25, 2003, at 10:36  AM, Bryan T. Roche wrote:

>
> Well, to use a phrase familiar to Americans and all fans of the NRA
> and one Mr. Charlton Heston ... "Not from my cold dead hands" (will
> they wrench my ergonomic one-button mouse).   Seriously, didn't you
> know that us Mac users are more creative and intelligent than that
> other breed of "computer" user?
>
> Incidently - the new version of Psyscope that is coming out for OSX
> any day now is new and super-improved and allows for the creation of
> external event markers and the electrical controlling of external
> devices without the need for the external button box interface or any
> computer programming whatsoever!  Did I mention that it is free?
>
> Also if anyone out there wants to use PsyScope on a PC they can get
> in touch with me and I can give them what they need - it will run
> like a dream (but interfacing may not be so smooth - I have yet to
> check that).
>
> Some newer programmes for Psyscope (training derived rels
> continuously to criterion) and a shock conditioning programme that
> uses voltage outputs from the Mac are available for download at
> http://www.may.ie/academic/psychology/software.htm
>
> You see Steve - you need some Mac weirdos out there to cater for the
> other Mac weirdos that might be out there in the RFT world!
>
> One more thing - I do more than sing to my Mac when I am in my
> underwear!
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> >Fair warning:
> >Simon and Brian will never give up on Macs
> >until Steve Jobs is buried with an IBM on his chest.
> >I stayed with Brian once. Every morning he wandered through the
> >house in his underwear singing love songs to his Mac. Weird.
> >
> >: )
> >
> >- S
> --
> Bryan Roche, B.A., Ph.D., C.Psychol.
> Department of Psychology
> National University of Ireland, Maynooth
> Co. Kildare, Ireland
> Voice: ++ 353 1 7086026
> Fax: ++ 353 1 708 4767
> E-Mail: Bryan.T.Roche@...
> Web Site: www.may.ie/academic/psychology
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Well, to use a phrase familiar to Americans and all fans of the NRA
and one Mr. Charlton Heston ... "Not from my cold dead hands" (will
they wrench my ergonomic one-button mouse).   Seriously, didn't you
know that us Mac users are more creative and intelligent than that
other breed of "computer" user?

Incidently - the new version of Psyscope that is coming out for OSX
any day now is new and super-improved and allows for the creation of
external event markers and the electrical controlling of external
devices without the need for the external button box interface or any
computer programming whatsoever!  Did I mention that it is free?

Also if anyone out there wants to use PsyScope on a PC they can get
in touch with me and I can give them what they need - it will run
like a dream (but interfacing may not be so smooth - I have yet to
check that).

Some newer programmes for Psyscope (training derived rels
continuously to criterion) and a shock conditioning programme that
uses voltage outputs from the Mac are available for download at
http://www.may.ie/academic/psychology/software.htm

You see Steve - you need some Mac weirdos out there to cater for the
other Mac weirdos that might be out there in the RFT world!

One more thing - I do more than sing to my Mac when I am in my underwear!

Bryan



>Fair warning:
>Simon and Brian will never give up on Macs
>until Steve Jobs is buried with an IBM on his chest.
>I stayed with Brian once. Every morning he wandered through the
>house in his underwear singing love songs to his Mac. Weird.
>
>: )
>
>- S
--
Bryan Roche, B.A., Ph.D., C.Psychol.
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Co. Kildare, Ireland
Voice: ++ 353 1 7086026
Fax: ++ 353 1 708 4767
E-Mail: Bryan.T.Roche@...
Web Site: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

Luis,

You might be interested in a paper that Bryan Roche and I have coming out in the EAHB Bulletin on interfacing peripheral devices, such as polygraphs, to Macs running PsyScope...

regards,

simon.

Well, thank you very much for all the responses.  The problem has
been fixed and we can watch all the posts, so thanks to Mr. Eric Fox
for that and for directing me to the old posts.  I´m also joining the
ACT group.
I understand that the experiments are now being written with Visual
Basic... here we were able to run ye olde experiments made available
by the people at the NUI in their website because we´re lucky enough
to have an old Mac with PsyScope... :) but surely new tools make a
far better work.
Thanks again

LMSM

-- 
  

Dr Simon Dymond, BCBA
Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Psychology,
Department of Psychology,
APU,
East Road, Cambridge,
CB1 1PT.

Voice: +1223 363271 ext. 2647
Dept: +1223 363271 ext. 2112
Fax: +1223 417712
http://www.apu.ac.uk/psychology

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Well, thank you very much for all the responses.  The problem has
been fixed and we can watch all the posts, so thanks to Mr. Eric Fox
for that and for directing me to the old posts.  I´m also joining the
ACT group.
I understand that the experiments are now being written with Visual
Basic... here we were able to run ye olde experiments made available
by the people at the NUI in their website because we´re lucky enough
to have an old Mac with PsyScope... :) but surely new tools make a
far better work.
Thanks again

LMSM

-- 

Well, thank you very much for all the responses.  The problem has
been fixed and we can watch all the posts, so thanks to Mr. Eric Fox
for that and for directing me to the old posts.  I´m also joining the
ACT group.
I understand that the experiments are now being written with Visual
Basic... here we were able to run ye olde experiments made available
by the people at the NUI in their website because we´re lucky enough
to have an old Mac with PsyScope... :) but surely new tools make a
far better work.
Thanks again
LMSM

Ahhh -- I think I've discovered and fixed the problem. Apparently the default setting was to only allow the group manager/moderator to access the archive. I think I've fixed it so that everyone can view them now.

Please let me know if you're still unable to access the older messages...

Thanks,
Eric

Eric J. Fox, M.A.
Exploratory Phase Coordinator
Preparing Future Faculty Program
Graduate College
Arizona State University
Phone: (480) 965-7080
Fax: (480) 965-5158
Email: eric.fox@...
http://www.ericfox.net
http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hayes [mailto:hayes@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 5:48 PM
To: Eric Fox
Subject: Re: [RFT] Not seeing messages

Eric

I see the numbers in the boxes but I can't select them.
Maybe they are too old?

- S

Eric Fox wrote:

> Which posts are you not able to see? Everyone who is a member should
> be able to see the previous posts, and I can see all of the posts
> since the Yahoo group has been started. As Steve notes, though, there
> haven't been very messages posted to the RFT group since its founding
> (about a month ago). Are you not seeing *any* messages at all?
>
> Many of the old postings from the UNR mailing list can also be found
> at the RFT web site here: http://www.relationalframetheory.com/oldforum.
>
>
> -Eric
>
>
> Eric J. Fox, M.A.
> Exploratory Phase Coordinator
> Preparing Future Faculty Program
> Graduate College
> Arizona State University
> Phone: (480) 965-7080
> Fax: (480) 965-5158
> Email: eric.fox@...
> http://www.ericfox.net
> http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Hayes [mailto:hayes@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:53 PM
> To: rft
> Subject: [RFT] Not seeing messages
>
>
> I can't see them either ... I don't know why.
>
> The original RFT list was maintained at UNR. It still exists
> actually, but we are moving it to Yahoo. In the transition,
> everything seems to have gotten quieter. I think part of the
> reason is that people are posting RFT issues on the ACT list
> and there was active discussion about whether to
> collapse the two lists into one. (Mixed opinions resulted).
>
> My suggestion: if you have RFT interests, join both
> the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and
> Relational Frame Theory lists at Yahoo.
> Unlike what i see with the RFT group, you can see the
> ACT posts ... and many of these bear on RFT topics.
>
> I will work with Alethea Smith, our old RFT list master, to
> get everyone on the UNR RFT list on to the Yahoo list.
>
> By the way, other supports for RFT research:
>
> Context Press will be publishing a book on Visual Basic
> programming by Mark Dixon and Otto Maclin
> that has prewritten RFT preparations. We are
> hoping to have it available at ABA but if not
> it will be available immediately afterward at
> www.contextpress.com
>
> Also, watch developments at www.relationalframetheory.com.
> We will be working to post more ways of supporting
> RFT work there.
>
> - S
>
> Steve Hayes
> University of Nevada
>
>
> Luis Manuel Silva wrote:
>
> > Dear people @ the RFT group: I´m a student of psychology in
> > Colombia, where we are quietly but strongly trying to build up a
> > community of people interested in RFT and in doing research using this
> > wonderful theoretical advance.  In the process of gathering
> > information about the theory I arrived to the website and then happily
> > entered this group, but to my surprise I cannot see earlier posts... I
> > think it could be very helpful to allow the archives to be seen by all
> > members, so new people can catch up with the discussions and old
> > members can remember what things are about. I´d like to thank you very
> > much for your attention.  I´m going
> > to promote this presence of the RFT in the Internet among the
> > interested people in Colombia (not just one or two... :)
> > Greetings
> > Luis Manuel Silva
> > Undergraduate Student - Fifth year.
> > Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3179269.4495679.2595810/D=egroupweb/S=1708364848:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3179269&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>

>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

It seems and though it might be a good idea to gather
the RFT folks at ABA to discuss how to
further the work, the website, etc. Any interest?

If so, Saturday night looks good ...
7 or so.

If you would be willing to come brainstorm
RFT ideas, respond back channel
(to hayes@...) and I will
guage the interest without bothering the
list serve members.

Also, if you are getting this message from
rft@... go to Yahoo.com
then "groups" then "rft" and join. The UNR
list serve will not last much longer

- S

Steve Hayes

Which posts are you not able to see? Everyone who is a member should be able to see the previous posts, and I can see all of the posts since the Yahoo group has been started. As Steve notes, though, there haven't been very messages posted to the RFT group since its founding (about a month ago). Are you not seeing *any* messages at all?

Many of the old postings from the UNR mailing list can also be found at the RFT web site here: http://www.relationalframetheory.com/oldforum.

-Eric

Eric J. Fox, M.A.
Exploratory Phase Coordinator
Preparing Future Faculty Program
Graduate College
Arizona State University
Phone: (480) 965-7080
Fax: (480) 965-5158
Email: eric.fox@...
http://www.ericfox.net
http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hayes [mailto:hayes@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:53 PM
To: rft
Subject: [RFT] Not seeing messages

I can't see them either ... I don't know why.

The original RFT list was maintained at UNR. It still exists
actually, but we are moving it to Yahoo. In the transition,
everything seems to have gotten quieter. I think part of the
reason is that people are posting RFT issues on the ACT list
and there was active discussion about whether to
collapse the two lists into one. (Mixed opinions resulted).

My suggestion: if you have RFT interests, join both
the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and
Relational Frame Theory lists at Yahoo.
Unlike what i see with the RFT group, you can see the
ACT posts ... and many of these bear on RFT topics.

I will work with Alethea Smith, our old RFT list master, to
get everyone on the UNR RFT list on to the Yahoo list.

By the way, other supports for RFT research:

Context Press will be publishing a book on Visual Basic
programming by Mark Dixon and Otto Maclin
that has prewritten RFT preparations. We are
hoping to have it available at ABA but if not
it will be available immediately afterward at
www.contextpress.com

Also, watch developments at www.relationalframetheory.com.
We will be working to post more ways of supporting
RFT work there.

- S

Steve Hayes
University of Nevada

Luis Manuel Silva wrote:

> Dear people @ the RFT group: I´m a student of psychology in
> Colombia, where we are quietly but strongly trying to build up a
> community of people interested in RFT and in doing research using this
> wonderful theoretical advance.  In the process of gathering
> information about the theory I arrived to the website and then happily
> entered this group, but to my surprise I cannot see earlier posts... I
> think it could be very helpful to allow the archives to be seen by all
> members, so new people can catch up with the discussions and old
> members can remember what things are about. I´d like to thank you very
> much for your attention.  I´m going
> to promote this presence of the RFT in the Internet among the
> interested people in Colombia (not just one or two... :)
> Greetings
> Luis Manuel Silva
> Undergraduate Student - Fifth year.
> Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> 
>

Dear people @ the RFT group: I´m a student of psychology in
Colombia, where we are quietly but strongly trying to build up a community of people interested in RFT and in doing research using this wonderful theoretical advance.  In the process of gathering information about the theory I arrived to the website and then happily entered this group, but to my surprise I cannot see earlier posts... I think it could be very helpful to allow the archives to be seen by all members, so new people can catch up with the discussions and old members can remember what things are about. I´d like to thank you very much for your attention.  I´m going
to promote this presence of the RFT in the Internet among the interested people in Colombia (not just one or two...
Greetings
Luis Manuel Silva
Undergraduate Student - Fifth year.
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z_CBYA/vB5FAA/AG3JAA/wQ50lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 

Dear people @ the RFT group: I´m a student of psychology in
Colombia, where we are quietly but strongly trying to build up a
community of people interested in RFT and in doing research using
this wonderful theoretical advance.  In the process of gathering
information about the theory I arrived to the website and then
happily entered this group, but to my surprise I cannot see earlier
posts... I think it could be very helpful to allow the archives to be
seen by all members, so new people can catch up with the discussions
and old members can remember what things are about.
I´d like to thank you very much for your attention.  I´m going
to promote this presence of the RFT in the Internet among the
interested people in Colombia (not just one or two... :)
Greetings
Luis Manuel Silva
Undergraduate Student - Fifth year.
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

Hi everyone-

I've just added a fair amount of new content to the ACT web site (http://www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com):

-- Brief descriptions and techniques for addressing the various ACT components have been added to the "Resources & How To" section

-- "State of the ACT Evidence" has been added to the "Research Support" section.

-- "Philosophical Foundation" has been added to the "About ACT" section (this simply duplicates the material about functional contextualism from the RFT web site)

-- The Empirical Studies and Suggested Readings pages have been updated

A list of the updates (and links to them) can be found on the site's home page. Happy browsing!

-Eric

Eric J. Fox, M.A.
Exploratory Phase Coordinator
Preparing Future Faculty Program
Graduate College
Arizona State University
Phone: (480) 965-7080
Fax: (480) 965-5158
Email: eric.fox@...
http://www.ericfox.net
http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff

Doh!!!

Apologies, the email below was meant for the members of the RFT lab
at Maynooth -- I am not expecting the whole RFT community to wend
its way to Ireland for a meeting on Monday (but you're more than welcome
if you can spare the time and money!!!).

Thank God it's Friday, and I won't be able to do any other really stupid things
for a day or two.

Have a good weekend and watch that reply button when you're on the listserve!

D.



At 10:05 28/03/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>How does 12.00 on Monday suit for a meeting re. the Swedish conference?
>
>D.
>
>
>
>
>
>Dermot Barnes-Holmes
>Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
>Department of Psychology
>National University of Ireland, Maynooth
>Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
>Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
>Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
>Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
>Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
>Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology
>
>

How does 12.00 on Monday suit for a meeting re. the Swedish conference?

D.





Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Professor of Psychology and Head of Department
Department of Psychology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Office phone: +353 (01) 708-4765
Fax: +353 (01) 708-4767
Email address: Dermot.Barnes-Holmes@...
Cell phone (please use sparingly): +353 (086) 832-5585
Website: www.may.ie/academic/psychology

Greetings-

The Acceptance & Commitment Therapy web site is now up and running. You can find it here: http://www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com. There isn't a ton of content yet, but we'll be building it up gradually over the next few months. Feedback and contributions are always welcome.

Cheers,
Eric

Eric J. Fox, M.A.
First-Year Coordinator
Preparing Future Faculty Program
Graduate College
Arizona State University
Phone: (480) 965-7080
Fax: (480) 965-5158
Email: eric.fox@...
http://www.ericfox.net
http://www.asu.edu/graduate/pff