Hi David,

I remember from the conference I attended that Kelly has done, or is doing, some
work on using ACT through a systemic approach with children, adolescents and
parents. If you check out his website or send him an e-mail you might be able to
find out something further.

Good luck,

Nick



In message <006d01c592dd$ba3e9b20$1400a8c0@HOME1> UKACT@yahoogroups.com writes:
> Hi Colleagues,
>
> =20
>
> I would like to introduce myself before responding to Steven's question
> about the word
>
> 'behaviour'/'behavior' being included within the conference title.
>
> =20
>
> I work in the Derby specialist child and adolescent mental health service,
> and qualified=20
>
> in psychiatric nursing (1976) and social work (1987).  Whilst not a
> psychologist or=20
>
> qualified therapist I have attended numerous training events to learn about
> social learning=20
>
> (e.g. Webster-Stratton 'Incredible Years') and cognitive-behavioural
> approaches.=20=20
>
> Most recently I did a four day in-house training in D.B.T. and now find thi=
> s
> approach,=20
>
> like other behavioural approaches, essential to my practice.  However, my
> main=20
>
> approaches to working with children and families are systemic, especially
> the post-
>
> modern variety e.g. S.F.T., Narrative and Collaborative Conversations
> models.
>
> =20
>
> I have just finished a BSc in Systemic Practice and Family Therapy.  In my
> dissertation
>
> I argued for the inclusion of D.B.T. as a systemic practice.  If I had know=
> n
> more about
>
> ACT/RFT I would have done the same for these.  I am commonly met by
> incredulity that=20
>
> I can combine behavioural and systemic approaches, especially within one
> session.
>
> =20
>
> I want to start formal learning about ACT soon, but have to pay off my BSc
> course fee
>
> first.  I wonder whether I need to go to Kelly's workshop or go to the
> conference, given
>
> that it is unlikely that I can afford both within the next twelve months.
>
> =20
>
> I like Steven's word 'contextual'.  For me the word conjures up bridges
> between what=20
>
> appears to be the radically differing approaches of behaviourism and
> systemic practice.
>
> When I can understand RFT well enough I'm certain that I can translate the
> theory
>
> into systemic terms.  I agree with Judith's point about inclusivity
> especially around=20
>
> language and terminology.  I want to be able to relate to colleagues (even
> CBT trained=20
>
> colleagues) about ACT/RFT without them looking blank or making some
> condescending=20
>
> comment.  So, the more people who get to go to the conference the better
> (for me).
>
> =20
>
> Best wishes
>
> David
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Steven C. Hayes
> Sent: 26 July 2005 15:21
> To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: 'MARK WEBSTER (BRANKSOME)'; 'Frank W. Bond'
> Subject: RE: [UKACT] new member
>
> =20
>
> This looks to me like the one Mark Webster was organizing=20
>
> but I thought it was bigger and Yvonne Barnes-Holmes was part of it.
>
> Is Mark on this list? I'll cc him just in case he is not. Mark: this is the
> same
>
> event, no?
>
> =20
>
> By the way, we are close to committing to July 24-29, 2006 in London for=20
>
> WorldCon II. It will have intensives the weekend before; workshops during;
> and=20
>
> an array of symposia / paper sessions / addresses / etc. Frank Bond at
> Goldsmith's
>
> at the University of London is the Conference Director. Is Frank on this
> list?
>
> I'll cc him too in case he is not
>
> =20
>
> The last one in Sweden
>
> drew about 400 people ... I'd expect something in that range in the UK
>
> though it could be more or it could be less
>
> =20
>
> I could use some advice:
>
> =20
>
> The last conference of this kind was called the "World Conference on ACT,
> RFT,
>
> and the New Behavioral Psychology." It is not just my call and Frank and I
> didn't get a chance to=20
>
> speak of this but I would like to wonder out loud about whether it is time
> to let go of the
>
> phrase "the New Behavioral Psychology." The label is very true, but it
> creates barriers
>
> for people who thought behavioral psychology was dead / hated cognition /
> had no room
>
> for emotion (etc etc) and who might actually
>
> like contextualistic behavioral psychology, especially with a relatively
> well developed
>
> account of cognition and emotion on board.=20
>
> =20
>
> I was thinking instead of
>
> something like "The Second World Conference on ACT, RFT,=20
>
> and Contextual Psychology." The two are functionally identical, and it migh=
> t
> open some
>
> doors. The only problems I see is that a few behavioral hard core folks
> might=20
>
> be disappointed to see the term "behavioral" slip off the title and it migh=
> t
> not reach some
>
> behavioral folk as a result of the label. It might also happen
>
> that a few attendees might be startled when they arrive and find themselves
> among
>
> a bunch of revitalized behaviorists. I figure the latter can be managed --
> once folks listen
>
> to what is being said they can decide whether or not this makes sense and i=
> t
> is doubtful
>
> that people will run from the room screaming.
>
> =20
>
> The main ACT and RFT websites are about to go to be embedded inside a  new
> "Contextual Psychology"
>
> website ... sort of an indication of where things are ultimately going
> anyway
>
> =20
>
> My sense is that the anti-behavioral bias is stronger in some parts of
> Europe and particularly
>
> in the UK, so a less reactive label might help
>
> =20
>
> Thoughts on all sides of the issue, especially from a UK perspective?
>
> =20
>
> - S
>
>   _____=20=20
>

howdy,

I can well relate to David (Steares) experience of trying to incorporate
behavioural terms and practice into systemic or SFT approaches. I have a habbit
of doing this or explaing systemic and SFT in behavioural terms. After all the
family system is just a contextual environment where each person in it and
their behaviour has the potential to act as discrinitive stimilus and
contingencies or reinforcement or punishment for others behaviour which then
feeds back into the system/environment as further SD and contingencies, and SFT
I think is just an extension of Goldiamonds constructional approach. But quite
often I get a negative reaction for trying to do this, alot of professionals
who should know better indeed, dont want to hear or think that their therapies
are based on behavioural principles

So I think that even alot of psychologists/therapist who are hostile are already
using therapies that are based on sound empirically tested behavioural
principles whether they know it or not. I would say to David keep at it but I
know what you mean about getting as many of our ill-informed colleagues to such
conferences

A


> Hi Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I would like to introduce myself before responding to Steven's question
> about the word
>
> 'behaviour'/'behavior' being included within the conference title.
>
>
>
> I work in the Derby specialist child and adolescent mental health service,
> and qualified
>
> in psychiatric nursing (1976) and social work (1987).  Whilst not a
> psychologist or
>
> qualified therapist I have attended numerous training events to learn about
> social learning
>
> (e.g. Webster-Stratton 'Incredible Years') and cognitive-behavioural
> approaches.
>
> Most recently I did a four day in-house training in D.B.T. and now find this
> approach,
>
> like other behavioural approaches, essential to my practice.  However, my
> main
>
> approaches to working with children and families are systemic, especially
> the post-
>
> modern variety e.g. S.F.T., Narrative and Collaborative Conversations
> models.
>
>
>
> I have just finished a BSc in Systemic Practice and Family Therapy.  In my
> dissertation
>
> I argued for the inclusion of D.B.T. as a systemic practice.  If I had known
> more about
>
> ACT/RFT I would have done the same for these.  I am commonly met by
> incredulity that
>
> I can combine behavioural and systemic approaches, especially within one
> session.
>
>
>
> I want to start formal learning about ACT soon, but have to pay off my BSc
> course fee
>
> first.  I wonder whether I need to go to Kelly's workshop or go to the
> conference, given
>
> that it is unlikely that I can afford both within the next twelve months.
>
>
>
> I like Steven's word 'contextual'.  For me the word conjures up bridges
> between what
>
> appears to be the radically differing approaches of behaviourism and
> systemic practice.
>
> When I can understand RFT well enough I'm certain that I can translate the
> theory
>
> into systemic terms.  I agree with Judith's point about inclusivity
> especially around
>
> language and terminology.  I want to be able to relate to colleagues (even
> CBT trained
>
> colleagues) about ACT/RFT without them looking blank or making some
> condescending
>
> comment.  So, the more people who get to go to the conference the better
> (for me).
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Steven C. Hayes
> Sent: 26 July 2005 15:21
> To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: 'MARK WEBSTER (BRANKSOME)'; 'Frank W. Bond'
> Subject: RE: [UKACT] new member
>
>
>
> This looks to me like the one Mark Webster was organizing
>
> but I thought it was bigger and Yvonne Barnes-Holmes was part of it.
>
> Is Mark on this list? I'll cc him just in case he is not. Mark: this is the
> same
>
> event, no?
>
>
>
> By the way, we are close to committing to July 24-29, 2006 in London for
>
> WorldCon II. It will have intensives the weekend before; workshops during;
> and
>
> an array of symposia / paper sessions / addresses / etc. Frank Bond at
> Goldsmith's
>
> at the University of London is the Conference Director. Is Frank on this
> list?
>
> I'll cc him too in case he is not
>
>
>
> The last one in Sweden
>
> drew about 400 people ... I'd expect something in that range in the UK
>
> though it could be more or it could be less
>
>
>
> I could use some advice:
>
>
>
> The last conference of this kind was called the "World Conference on ACT,
> RFT,
>
> and the New Behavioral Psychology." It is not just my call and Frank and I
> didn't get a chance to
>
> speak of this but I would like to wonder out loud about whether it is time
> to let go of the
>
> phrase "the New Behavioral Psychology." The label is very true, but it
> creates barriers
>
> for people who thought behavioral psychology was dead / hated cognition /
> had no room
>
> for emotion (etc etc) and who might actually
>
> like contextualistic behavioral psychology, especially with a relatively
> well developed
>
> account of cognition and emotion on board.
>
>
>
> I was thinking instead of
>
> something like "The Second World Conference on ACT, RFT,
>
> and Contextual Psychology." The two are functionally identical, and it might
> open some
>
> doors. The only problems I see is that a few behavioral hard core folks
> might
>
> be disappointed to see the term "behavioral" slip off the title and it might
> not reach some
>
> behavioral folk as a result of the label. It might also happen
>
> that a few attendees might be startled when they arrive and find themselves
> among
>
> a bunch of revitalized behaviorists. I figure the latter can be managed --
> once folks listen
>
> to what is being said they can decide whether or not this makes sense and it
> is doubtful
>
> that people will run from the room screaming.
>
>
>
> The main ACT and RFT websites are about to go to be embedded inside a  new
> "Contextual Psychology"
>
> website ... sort of an indication of where things are ultimately going
> anyway
>
>
>
> My sense is that the anti-behavioral bias is stronger in some parts of
> Europe and particularly
>
> in the UK, so a less reactive label might help
>
>
>
> Thoughts on all sides of the issue, especially from a UK perspective?
>
>
>
> - S
>
>   _____
>
>

Like AJP, my gut reaction is to keep B in the title.  However, my
evaluation of the likely impact is that it would serve us better to
leave it out and word the title in much the way Steve has suggested.
We would bring in B by the back door.

There is considerable hostility to all things B in the UK and many
psychologists who should know better denounce it out of ignorance.
I'd do what we can to bring them on board and word other things than
the title in such a way that makes it clear behavioral psychology has
not been watered down or undermined.

Tony.

My position would be a little more pragmatic I think. Outside of the
"movement", the use of contextualism or functional contextualism may
simply not be understood. New behaviour therapies or third wave
cognitive behaviour therapies or some similar term, including the B
word, would probably work better.

Is the previous title broke? Is the idea to include people from MBCT,
DBT etc? If so, what sort of terminology would also attract them -
does everyone sign up to "third wave" for example?

Just some thoughts.

Richard

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hastings, PhD, BCBA
Professor of Psychology
School of Psychology
University of Wales Bangor
Bangor
Gwynedd
LL57 2AS

Tel: +44 (0)1248 388214
Fax: +44 (0)1248 383718
e-mail: r.hastings@...
http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/~richard_hastings

Special Needs and Families Research Project web site:
http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/special_needs/

SPONSORED LINKS

Behavior Social sciences Analysis Branch

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "UKACT" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   UKACT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- 

Hi,

I agree with Richard in that I think that the title of the conference could
serve a pragmatic purpose - encouraging those people in the UK & Europe who
are curious about ACT and the third wave cognitive behavioural approaches to
attend. We want to reach out to people who have the third wave interest. My
sense is that there are lot of people out there who are disenchanted with
second-wave cognitive therapy for both clinical and theoretical reasons, and
are interested in new empirical approaches.

Having engaged in quite a bit of rumination about whether to mention that
ACT is behavioural to my colleagues, I now realise that talking in this way
does at times close people down to discussion about the merits of ACT and
the RFT research. And IMHO the merits of the research address the very
issues that my colleagues have with traditional CBT. Anyone who decides to
check out ACT will fairly quickly be aware of behaviour analytic background.
ACT is a form of CBT, what purpose does it serve in this context (promoting
a conference for an empirical therapy in the UK) to use terms that may close
down interest from CBT therapists and researchers, at least to the degree
that they decide that the conference is not for them?

So, "new behavioural psychology"? I'm not so sure. Perhaps something like
"third-wave cognitive behavioural therapies" would work better (if
attracting the CBT crowd is part of the goal of the conference).

My £0.02 worth.

cheers, Eric


Eric Morris
Lead Psychologist
Lambeth Early Onset Services
South London & Maudsley NHS Trust
3-6 Beale House
Lingham Street
Stockwell
SW9 9HG
PH: 020 7326 2840
Fax: 020 7326 2866




  -----Original Message-----
From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Richard Hastings
Sent: 27 July 2005 13:41
To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UKACT] The B word discussion


My position would be a little more pragmatic I think. Outside of the
"movement", the use of contextualism or functional contextualism may
simply not be understood. New behaviour therapies or third wave
cognitive behaviour therapies or some similar term, including the B
word, would probably work better.

Is the previous title broke? Is the idea to include people from MBCT,
DBT etc? If so, what sort of terminology would also attract them -
does everyone sign up to "third wave" for example?

Just some thoughts.

Richard

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hastings, PhD, BCBA
Professor of Psychology
School of Psychology
University of Wales Bangor
Bangor
Gwynedd
LL57 2AS

Tel: +44 (0)1248 388214
Fax: +44 (0)1248 383718
e-mail: r.hastings@...
http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/~richard_hastings

Special Needs and Families Research Project web site:
http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/special_needs/


SPONSORED LINKS Behavior Social sciences Analysis
Branch



YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  Visit your group "UKACT" on the web.

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

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

Visit our website http://www.slam.nhs.uk/

Disclaimer This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient,
any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or any other action taken in
respect of this e-mail is prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately by using the reply
function and then permanently delete what you have received. Incoming and
outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored
for compliance with the Department of Health's policy on the use of electronic
communications. For more information on the
Department of Health's e-mail policy click here
http://www.doh.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer.htm

HI

I think if we are keeping the B, then I agree with Dave and Richard that "third
wave" is good, as it incorporates the DBT and MBCT aspects as well. Also, I
agree with dave that it suggests evolution and movement on from 'old'
(misconcieed) ideas about behaviourism and suggests that something is different
and new. The idea of New Behaviourism might also help attract some interested
parties. But who knows? I suspect this topic will generate some intersting and
useful discussions on the list for a while to come.

A


>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I like the term "third wave", as long as the behaviour
>
> title features in there somewhere. "Third wave
>
> behaviour therapies" is good, and suggests pragmatism
>
> and evolution.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> --- Richard Hastings <r.hastings@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My position would be a little more pragmatic I
>
> > think. Outside of the
>
> > "movement", the use of contextualism or functional
>
> > contextualism may
>
> > simply not be understood. New behaviour therapies or
>
> > third wave
>
> > cognitive behaviour therapies or some similar term,
>
> > including the B
>
> > word, would probably work better.
>
> >
>
> > Is the previous title broke? Is the idea to include
>
> > people from MBCT,
>
> > DBT etc? If so, what sort of terminology would also
>
> > attract them -
>
> > does everyone sign up to "third wave" for example?
>
> >
>
> > Just some thoughts.
>
> >
>
> > Richard
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Richard Hastings, PhD, BCBA
>
> > Professor of Psychology
>
> > School of Psychology
>
> > University of Wales Bangor
>
> > Bangor
>
> > Gwynedd
>
> > LL57 2AS
>
> >
>
> > Tel: +44 (0)1248 388214
>
> > Fax: +44 (0)1248 383718
>
> > e-mail: r.hastings@...
>
> > http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/~richard_hastings
>
> >
>
> > Special Needs and Families Research Project web
>
> > site:
>
> > http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/special_needs/
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
>
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
>
>    Visit your group "UKACT" on the web.
>  
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  UKACT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,

I like the term "third wave", as long as the behaviour
title features in there somewhere. "Third wave
behaviour therapies" is good, and suggests pragmatism
and evolution.

Dave

--- Richard Hastings <r.hastings@...> wrote:

> My position would be a little more pragmatic I
> think. Outside of the
> "movement", the use of contextualism or functional
> contextualism may
> simply not be understood. New behaviour therapies or
> third wave
> cognitive behaviour therapies or some similar term,
> including the B
> word, would probably work better.
>
> Is the previous title broke? Is the idea to include
> people from MBCT,
> DBT etc? If so, what sort of terminology would also
> attract them -
> does everyone sign up to "third wave" for example?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Richard
>
> --
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Hastings, PhD, BCBA
> Professor of Psychology
> School of Psychology
> University of Wales Bangor
> Bangor
> Gwynedd
> LL57 2AS
>
> Tel: +44 (0)1248 388214
> Fax: +44 (0)1248 383718
> e-mail: r.hastings@...
> http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/~richard_hastings
>
> Special Needs and Families Research Project web
> site:
> http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/special_needs/
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

My position would be a little more pragmatic I think. Outside of the
"movement", the use of contextualism or functional contextualism may
simply not be understood. New behaviour therapies or third wave
cognitive behaviour therapies or some similar term, including the B
word, would probably work better.

Is the previous title broke? Is the idea to include people from MBCT,
DBT etc? If so, what sort of terminology would also attract them -
does everyone sign up to "third wave" for example?

Just some thoughts.

Richard

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hastings, PhD, BCBA
Professor of Psychology
School of Psychology
University of Wales Bangor
Bangor
Gwynedd
LL57 2AS

Tel: +44 (0)1248 388214
Fax: +44 (0)1248 383718
e-mail: r.hastings@...
http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/~richard_hastings

Special Needs and Families Research Project web site:
http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/special_needs/

now that ive got my pro-behaviourist soapbox speel out of my system!

  I can see Steves point about the terms being functionally the same. I suppose
as a functionalist (well I try to be) the name of the conference should
ultimately come down to what is the most functional name for what we are trying
to achieve in the context of the conference. I would think that part of that
function will be to spread the good news, so to speak. In other words, we
should be sharing what we know and what we are doing within ACT/RFT (and I
suppose a FAP framework as well) with others in our professions. Also if we are
moving towards a contextual descritpion then London '06 might be the place to
launch it with gusto on the world!

I'm sure conference info would probably give enough information anyway about the
roots and philosophy of functional contextualism, and it might even get a few
curious about the area. I can see the point that the behavioural bit might
scare a few people off, especially if it is in the title, they might not read
further.

I suppose my gut reaction is to say "keep the big "B", but I'll be there in
Londaon regardless, so if contextual psychology is the most functional title,
then onwards and upwards I say. I'm sure I'll find enough talks about
contingencies and stimilus function to keep me more than a happy bunny

A.

Where in the UK are you, Mark?  And welcome.
Tony.

Steven C. Hayes

Foundation Professor

Department of Psychology /298

University of Nevada

Reno, NV 89557-0062

Office: (775) 784-6828 x2005

Email: hayes@...

Context Press (you can use this for messages as well): (775) 746-2013

Fax: (775) 784-1126

Home: (775) 746-3121

Home fax: Use the Context Press line. It will automatically detect incoming faxes.

Cell (please use sparingly): (775) 848-0689

Relevant websites:

www.unr.edu/psych then click on faculty pages

www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com

www.relationalframetheory.com

www.contextpress.com

---

From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of A J P Hart
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:30 PM
To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com; D Dawson
Cc: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UKACT] The "B" word...

I kind of agree with brother Dave here, and by kind of I mean totally. I'm also
a trainee clinical psychologist and have first had experience of the
anti-behavioural stance that is indeed, as DAve calls it, endemic in the UK.

Such misunderstandings often lead to behaviourists within the profession being
labelled as archaic dinosaurs who only deal in surface issues or who think only
of punishment schedules as a means of treatment.

I also think that keeping the "B" in will work in the sense that it will as DAve
highlights, demonstrate that the empirical foundations of these therapies have
evolved over 100 years. By labelling it as Behavioural, we can help to
demonstrate that Radical Behaviourism and Behaviour Analysis is not distant,
punitive or mechanical and that RB has much to offer in terms of creating what
Bob Kohlenberg calls intense and curative therapeutic realtionships.

I'm not sure also that we should be denying our own philosphy of science in the
service aiding the avoidance of other psychologists. I think we should be
honsest about it as well, these are behaviour therapies and we are
behavioiurists.

So to paraphase the Godfather of Soul- James Brown:

"say it once, say it loud, we're behaviourists and we're proud!"

well I am anyway.

Aidan



>
>
>
> Hi there,
>
>
>
> I can only give you my humble opinion as a trainee
>
> clinical psychologist, but here goes…My own view on
>
> the subject would to be to keep the "behaviour" part
>
> of the title in. I think you're right in saying that
>
> there is a slight anti-behavioural stance in the UK,
>
> but a great deal of that is based on misunderstanding
>
> and misinterpretation (no surprise). However, instead
>
> of closing doors, I believe that keeping the "B" word
>
> in would actually open a few more. I get the feeling
>
> through talking with clinicians, trainees and other
>
> professionals etc. that there is a growing element of
>
> disenfranchisement with Cognitive Therapy (big "C"),
>
> but also a weariness that all new therapies appear to
>
> be the same. The reason a great deal of new therapies
>
> appear to be the same, is that they are: they are (in
>
> my opinion) based solely at the technique level, and
>
> usually bereft of any philosophical/theoretical
>
> foundation. The new behaviour therapies appear truly
>
> different, but do also enjoy and share the
>
> empirical/scientific foundations of behaviourism, from
>
> which they grew. Keeping the "B" word in, to me,
>
> demonstrates to individuals that these new therapies
>
> are not another re-branding of the same tired old
>
> techniques, but are the evolving product of 100 years
>
> of experimental/empirical scientific enquiry.
>
>
>
> Keeping the “B” word in works threefold for me: it
>
> shows the theoretical foundation of the therapies
>
> (which we should be proud of), it will draw the
>
> attention and interest of people alienated from the
>
> CBT/CT hegemony that is endemic in the UK at the
>
> moment, and it will make a lot of bearded, old-school
>
> behaviourists very happy!
>
>
>
> I don’t know if anyone else agrees, but it would be
>
> good to hear from you anyway!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> --- "Steven C. Hayes" <hayes@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This looks to me like the one Mark Webster was
>
> > organizing
>
> > but I thought it was bigger and Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
>
> > was part of it.
>
> > Is Mark on this list? I'll cc him just in case he is
>
> > not. Mark: this is the
>
> > same
>
> > event, no?
>
> > 
>
> > By the way, we are close to committing to July
>
> > 24-29, 2006 in London for
>
> > WorldCon II. It will have intensives the weekend
>
> > before; workshops during;
>
> > and
>
> > an array of symposia / paper sessions / addresses /
>
> > etc. Frank Bond at
>
> > Goldsmith's
>
> > at the University of London is the Conference
>
> > Director. Is Frank on this
>
> > list?
>
> > I'll cc him too in case he is not
>
> > 
>
> > The last one in Sweden
>
> > drew about 400 people ... I'd expect something in
>
> > that range in the UK
>
> > though it could be more or it could be less
>
> > 
>
> > I could use some advice:
>
> > 
>
> > The last conference of this kind was called the
>
> > "World Conference on ACT,
>
> > RFT,
>
> > and the New Behavioral Psychology." It is not just
>
> > my call and Frank and I
>
> > didn't get a chance to
>
> > speak of this but I would like to wonder out loud
>
> > about whether it is time
>
> > to let go of the
>
> > phrase "the New Behavioral Psychology." The label is
>
> > very true, but it
>
> > creates barriers
>
> > for people who thought behavioral psychology was
>
> > dead / hated cognition /
>
> > had no room
>
> > for emotion (etc etc) and who might actually
>
> > like contextualistic behavioral psychology,
>
> > especially with a relatively
>
> > well developed
>
> > account of cognition and emotion on board.
>
> > 
>
> > I was thinking instead of
>
> > something like "The Second World Conference on ACT,
>
> > RFT,
>
> > and Contextual Psychology." The two are functionally
>
> > identical, and it might
>
> > open some
>
> > doors. The only problems I see is that a few
>
> > behavioral hard core folks
>
> > might
>
> > be disappointed to see the term "behavioral" slip
>
> > off the title and it might
>
> > not reach some
>
> > behavioral folk as a result of the label. It might
>
> > also happen
>
> > that a few attendees might be startled when they
>
> > arrive and find themselves
>
> > among
>
> > a bunch of revitalized behaviorists. I figure the
>
> > latter can be managed --
>
> > once folks listen
>
> > to what is being said they can decide whether or not
>
> > this makes sense and it
>
> > is doubtful
>
> > that people will run from the room screaming.
>
> > 
>
> > The main ACT and RFT websites are about to go to be
>
> > embedded inside a  new
>
> > "Contextual Psychology"
>
> > website ... sort of an indication of where things
>
> > are ultimately going
>
> > anyway
>
> > 
>
> > My sense is that the anti-behavioral bias is
>
> > stronger in some parts of
>
> > Europe and particularly
>
> > in the UK, so a less reactive label might help
>
> > 
>
> > Thoughts on all sides of the issue, especially from
>
> > a UK perspective?
>
> > 
>
> > - S
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> > Steven C. Hayes
>
> >
>
> > Foundation Professor
>
> >
>
> > Department of Psychology /298
>
> >
>
> > University of Nevada
>
> >
>
> > Reno, NV 89557-0062
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> > Office: (775) 784-6828 x2005
>
> >
>
> > Email: hayes@...
>
> >
>
> > Context Press (you can use this for messages as
>
> > well): (775) 746-2013
>
> >
>
> > Fax: (775) 784-1126
>
> >
>
> > Home: (775) 746-3121
>
> >
>
> > Home fax: Use the Context Press line. It will
>
> > automatically detect incoming
>
> > faxes.
>
> >
>
> > Cell (please use sparingly): (775) 848-0689
>
> >
>
> > Relevant websites:
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.unr.edu/psych> www.unr.edu/psych then
>
> > click on faculty pages
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com/>
>
> > www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.relationalframetheory.com/>
>
> > www.relationalframetheory.com
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.contextpress.com/> www.contextpress.com
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >   _____ 
>
> >
>
> > From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>
> > Brian Glaister
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:43 AM
>
> > To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Subject: RE: [UKACT] new member
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What about going to one of these workshops? (Info
>
> > attached)
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> > Brian
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> > Dr Brian Glaister
>
> > Psychologist in Private Practice
>
> > 135 Foxley Lane
>
> > Purley
>
> > CR8 3HR
>
> > UK
>
> > Phone +44 (0)20 8660 7465
>
> > brian@...
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >   _____ 
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>
> > midlifeact
>
> > Sent: 25 July 2005 11:47
>
> > To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Subject: [UKACT] new member
>
> >
>
> > 
>
> >
>
> > i'm have an interest in ACT and would dearly like
>
> > some hands on
>
> > training. Any ideas?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
>
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>  
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
>
>    Visit your group "UKACT" on the web.
> 
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  UKACT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I kind of agree with brother Dave here, and by kind of I mean totally. I'm also
a trainee clinical psychologist and have first had experience of the
anti-behavioural stance that is indeed, as DAve calls it, endemic in the UK.

Such misunderstandings often lead to behaviourists within the profession being
labelled as archaic dinosaurs who only deal in surface issues or who think only
of punishment schedules as a means of treatment.

I also think that keeping the "B" in will work in the sense that it will as DAve
highlights, demonstrate that the empirical foundations of these therapies have
evolved over 100 years. By labelling it as Behavioural, we can help to
demonstrate that Radical Behaviourism and Behaviour Analysis is not distant,
punitive or mechanical and that RB has much to offer in terms of creating what
Bob Kohlenberg calls intense and curative therapeutic realtionships.

I'm not sure also that we should be denying our own philosphy of science in the
service aiding the avoidance of other psychologists. I think we should be
honsest about it as well, these are behaviour therapies and we are
behavioiurists.

So to paraphase the Godfather of Soul- James Brown:

"say it once, say it loud, we're behaviourists and we're proud!"

well I am anyway.

Aidan



>
>
>
> Hi there,
>
>
>
> I can only give you my humble opinion as a trainee
>
> clinical psychologist, but here goes…My own view on
>
> the subject would to be to keep the "behaviour" part
>
> of the title in. I think you're right in saying that
>
> there is a slight anti-behavioural stance in the UK,
>
> but a great deal of that is based on misunderstanding
>
> and misinterpretation (no surprise). However, instead
>
> of closing doors, I believe that keeping the "B" word
>
> in would actually open a few more. I get the feeling
>
> through talking with clinicians, trainees and other
>
> professionals etc. that there is a growing element of
>
> disenfranchisement with Cognitive Therapy (big "C"),
>
> but also a weariness that all new therapies appear to
>
> be the same. The reason a great deal of new therapies
>
> appear to be the same, is that they are: they are (in
>
> my opinion) based solely at the technique level, and
>
> usually bereft of any philosophical/theoretical
>
> foundation. The new behaviour therapies appear truly
>
> different, but do also enjoy and share the
>
> empirical/scientific foundations of behaviourism, from
>
> which they grew. Keeping the "B" word in, to me,
>
> demonstrates to individuals that these new therapies
>
> are not another re-branding of the same tired old
>
> techniques, but are the evolving product of 100 years
>
> of experimental/empirical scientific enquiry.
>
>
>
> Keeping the “B” word in works threefold for me: it
>
> shows the theoretical foundation of the therapies
>
> (which we should be proud of), it will draw the
>
> attention and interest of people alienated from the
>
> CBT/CT hegemony that is endemic in the UK at the
>
> moment, and it will make a lot of bearded, old-school
>
> behaviourists very happy!
>
>
>
> I don’t know if anyone else agrees, but it would be
>
> good to hear from you anyway!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> --- "Steven C. Hayes" <hayes@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This looks to me like the one Mark Webster was
>
> > organizing
>
> > but I thought it was bigger and Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
>
> > was part of it.
>
> > Is Mark on this list? I'll cc him just in case he is
>
> > not. Mark: this is the
>
> > same
>
> > event, no?
>
> >
>
> > By the way, we are close to committing to July
>
> > 24-29, 2006 in London for
>
> > WorldCon II. It will have intensives the weekend
>
> > before; workshops during;
>
> > and
>
> > an array of symposia / paper sessions / addresses /
>
> > etc. Frank Bond at
>
> > Goldsmith's
>
> > at the University of London is the Conference
>
> > Director. Is Frank on this
>
> > list?
>
> > I'll cc him too in case he is not
>
> >
>
> > The last one in Sweden
>
> > drew about 400 people ... I'd expect something in
>
> > that range in the UK
>
> > though it could be more or it could be less
>
> >
>
> > I could use some advice:
>
> >
>
> > The last conference of this kind was called the
>
> > "World Conference on ACT,
>
> > RFT,
>
> > and the New Behavioral Psychology." It is not just
>
> > my call and Frank and I
>
> > didn't get a chance to
>
> > speak of this but I would like to wonder out loud
>
> > about whether it is time
>
> > to let go of the
>
> > phrase "the New Behavioral Psychology." The label is
>
> > very true, but it
>
> > creates barriers
>
> > for people who thought behavioral psychology was
>
> > dead / hated cognition /
>
> > had no room
>
> > for emotion (etc etc) and who might actually
>
> > like contextualistic behavioral psychology,
>
> > especially with a relatively
>
> > well developed
>
> > account of cognition and emotion on board.
>
> >
>
> > I was thinking instead of
>
> > something like "The Second World Conference on ACT,
>
> > RFT,
>
> > and Contextual Psychology." The two are functionally
>
> > identical, and it might
>
> > open some
>
> > doors. The only problems I see is that a few
>
> > behavioral hard core folks
>
> > might
>
> > be disappointed to see the term "behavioral" slip
>
> > off the title and it might
>
> > not reach some
>
> > behavioral folk as a result of the label. It might
>
> > also happen
>
> > that a few attendees might be startled when they
>
> > arrive and find themselves
>
> > among
>
> > a bunch of revitalized behaviorists. I figure the
>
> > latter can be managed --
>
> > once folks listen
>
> > to what is being said they can decide whether or not
>
> > this makes sense and it
>
> > is doubtful
>
> > that people will run from the room screaming.
>
> >
>
> > The main ACT and RFT websites are about to go to be
>
> > embedded inside a  new
>
> > "Contextual Psychology"
>
> > website ... sort of an indication of where things
>
> > are ultimately going
>
> > anyway
>
> >
>
> > My sense is that the anti-behavioral bias is
>
> > stronger in some parts of
>
> > Europe and particularly
>
> > in the UK, so a less reactive label might help
>
> >
>
> > Thoughts on all sides of the issue, especially from
>
> > a UK perspective?
>
> >
>
> > - S
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Steven C. Hayes
>
> >
>
> > Foundation Professor
>
> >
>
> > Department of Psychology /298
>
> >
>
> > University of Nevada
>
> >
>
> > Reno, NV 89557-0062
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Office: (775) 784-6828 x2005
>
> >
>
> > Email: hayes@...
>
> >
>
> > Context Press (you can use this for messages as
>
> > well): (775) 746-2013
>
> >
>
> > Fax: (775) 784-1126
>
> >
>
> > Home: (775) 746-3121
>
> >
>
> > Home fax: Use the Context Press line. It will
>
> > automatically detect incoming
>
> > faxes.
>
> >
>
> > Cell (please use sparingly): (775) 848-0689
>
> >
>
> > Relevant websites:
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.unr.edu/psych> www.unr.edu/psych then
>
> > click on faculty pages
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com/>
>
> > www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.relationalframetheory.com/>
>
> > www.relationalframetheory.com
>
> >
>
> >  <http://www.contextpress.com/> www.contextpress.com
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >   _____
>
> >
>
> > From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>
> > Brian Glaister
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:43 AM
>
> > To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Subject: RE: [UKACT] new member
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What about going to one of these workshops? (Info
>
> > attached)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Brian
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dr Brian Glaister
>
> > Psychologist in Private Practice
>
> > 135 Foxley Lane
>
> > Purley
>
> > CR8 3HR
>
> > UK
>
> > Phone +44 (0)20 8660 7465
>
> > brian@...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >   _____
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>
> > midlifeact
>
> > Sent: 25 July 2005 11:47
>
> > To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Subject: [UKACT] new member
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > i'm have an interest in ACT and would dearly like
>
> > some hands on
>
> > training. Any ideas?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
>
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
>
>    Visit your group "UKACT" on the web.
>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  UKACT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi there,

I can only give you my humble opinion as a trainee
clinical psychologist, but here goes…My own view on
the subject would to be to keep the "behaviour" part
of the title in. I think you're right in saying that
there is a slight anti-behavioural stance in the UK,
but a great deal of that is based on misunderstanding
and misinterpretation (no surprise). However, instead
of closing doors, I believe that keeping the "B" word
in would actually open a few more. I get the feeling
through talking with clinicians, trainees and other
professionals etc. that there is a growing element of
disenfranchisement with Cognitive Therapy (big "C"),
but also a weariness that all new therapies appear to
be the same. The reason a great deal of new therapies
appear to be the same, is that they are: they are (in
my opinion) based solely at the technique level, and
usually bereft of any philosophical/theoretical
foundation. The new behaviour therapies appear truly
different, but do also enjoy and share the
empirical/scientific foundations of behaviourism, from
which they grew. Keeping the "B" word in, to me,
demonstrates to individuals that these new therapies
are not another re-branding of the same tired old
techniques, but are the evolving product of 100 years
of experimental/empirical scientific enquiry.

Keeping the “B” word in works threefold for me: it
shows the theoretical foundation of the therapies
(which we should be proud of), it will draw the
attention and interest of people alienated from the
CBT/CT hegemony that is endemic in the UK at the
moment, and it will make a lot of bearded, old-school
behaviourists very happy!

I don’t know if anyone else agrees, but it would be
good to hear from you anyway!

Cheers

Dave


--- "Steven C. Hayes" <hayes@...> wrote:

> This looks to me like the one Mark Webster was
> organizing
> but I thought it was bigger and Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
> was part of it.
> Is Mark on this list? I'll cc him just in case he is
> not. Mark: this is the
> same
> event, no?
>
> By the way, we are close to committing to July
> 24-29, 2006 in London for
> WorldCon II. It will have intensives the weekend
> before; workshops during;
> and
> an array of symposia / paper sessions / addresses /
> etc. Frank Bond at
> Goldsmith's
> at the University of London is the Conference
> Director. Is Frank on this
> list?
> I'll cc him too in case he is not
>
> The last one in Sweden
> drew about 400 people ... I'd expect something in
> that range in the UK
> though it could be more or it could be less
>
> I could use some advice:
>
> The last conference of this kind was called the
> "World Conference on ACT,
> RFT,
> and the New Behavioral Psychology." It is not just
> my call and Frank and I
> didn't get a chance to
> speak of this but I would like to wonder out loud
> about whether it is time
> to let go of the
> phrase "the New Behavioral Psychology." The label is
> very true, but it
> creates barriers
> for people who thought behavioral psychology was
> dead / hated cognition /
> had no room
> for emotion (etc etc) and who might actually
> like contextualistic behavioral psychology,
> especially with a relatively
> well developed
> account of cognition and emotion on board.
>
> I was thinking instead of
> something like "The Second World Conference on ACT,
> RFT,
> and Contextual Psychology." The two are functionally
> identical, and it might
> open some
> doors. The only problems I see is that a few
> behavioral hard core folks
> might
> be disappointed to see the term "behavioral" slip
> off the title and it might
> not reach some
> behavioral folk as a result of the label. It might
> also happen
> that a few attendees might be startled when they
> arrive and find themselves
> among
> a bunch of revitalized behaviorists. I figure the
> latter can be managed --
> once folks listen
> to what is being said they can decide whether or not
> this makes sense and it
> is doubtful
> that people will run from the room screaming.
>
> The main ACT and RFT websites are about to go to be
> embedded inside a  new
> "Contextual Psychology"
> website ... sort of an indication of where things
> are ultimately going
> anyway
>
> My sense is that the anti-behavioral bias is
> stronger in some parts of
> Europe and particularly
> in the UK, so a less reactive label might help
>
> Thoughts on all sides of the issue, especially from
> a UK perspective?
>
> - S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steven C. Hayes
>
> Foundation Professor
>
> Department of Psychology /298
>
> University of Nevada
>
> Reno, NV 89557-0062
>
>
>
> Office: (775) 784-6828 x2005
>
> Email: hayes@...
>
> Context Press (you can use this for messages as
> well): (775) 746-2013
>
> Fax: (775) 784-1126
>
> Home: (775) 746-3121
>
> Home fax: Use the Context Press line. It will
> automatically detect incoming
> faxes.
>
> Cell (please use sparingly): (775) 848-0689
>
> Relevant websites:
>
>  <http://www.unr.edu/psych> www.unr.edu/psych then
> click on faculty pages
>
>  <http://www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com/>
> www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com
>
>  <http://www.relationalframetheory.com/>
> www.relationalframetheory.com
>
>  <http://www.contextpress.com/> www.contextpress.com
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Brian Glaister
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:43 AM
> To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [UKACT] new member
>
>
>
> What about going to one of these workshops? (Info
> attached)
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> Dr Brian Glaister
> Psychologist in Private Practice
> 135 Foxley Lane
> Purley
> CR8 3HR
> UK
> Phone +44 (0)20 8660 7465
> brian@...
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
> From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> midlifeact
> Sent: 25 July 2005 11:47
> To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [UKACT] new member
>
>
>
> i'm have an interest in ACT and would dearly like
> some hands on
> training. Any ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Steven C. Hayes

Foundation Professor

Department of Psychology /298

University of Nevada

Reno, NV 89557-0062

Office: (775) 784-6828 x2005

Email: hayes@...

Context Press (you can use this for messages as well): (775) 746-2013

Fax: (775) 784-1126

Home: (775) 746-3121

Home fax: Use the Context Press line. It will automatically detect incoming faxes.

Cell (please use sparingly): (775) 848-0689

Relevant websites:

www.unr.edu/psych then click on faculty pages

www.acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy.com

www.relationalframetheory.com

www.contextpress.com

---

From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Glaister
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:43 AM
To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [UKACT] new member

What about going to one of these workshops? (Info attached)

 

Brian

 

Dr Brian Glaister
Psychologist in Private Practice
135 Foxley Lane
Purley
CR8 3HR
UK
Phone +44 (0)20 8660 7465
brian@...

 

---

From: UKACT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UKACT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of midlifeact
Sent: 25 July 2005 11:47
To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UKACT] new member

 

i'm have an interest in ACT and would dearly like some hands on
training. Any ideas?

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005

-- 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005

i'm have an interest in ACT and would dearly like some hands on
training. Any ideas?

This is the Institute and workshop information I have to date:

1. Kelly's experiential workshop will be either 28-30 September or 29
September - 1 October (one evening plus two days).

2. Kelly's more advanced clinical workshop will be 2-3 or 3-4 October
(2 full days).

3. The ACT Institute will run 3-7 October, with pre-Institute
workshops 3/4 and the conference 5-7 October.

I haven't heard of any other UK groups.

Tony.

As the psychologist working in the community mental health team in Llandudno
I use ACT along with other therapeutic approaches depending on the
formulation of the problem - The client would need to be referred through
his G.P. and if he meets the criteria he would be accepted on to the
psychology waiting list
Kristina Cole

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonesmariel [SMTP:mariel@...]
> Sent: 11 May 2005 09:45
> To: UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [UKACT] avaiability of ACT in North Wales
>
> I have a friend living in Llandudno who has been open to the mental
> health team (diagnosed with anxiety/depression) who also has some
> addiction issues.  Please could anyone advise me if/how he could be
> referred for ACT in his home area? or is anyone offering to do this
> work privately, he is on a low income but maybe could afford
> fortnightly sessions.
>
> Thanks
>
> mariel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have a friend living in Llandudno who has been open to the mental
health team (diagnosed with anxiety/depression) who also has some
addiction issues.  Please could anyone advise me if/how he could be
referred for ACT in his home area? or is anyone offering to do this
work privately, he is on a low income but maybe could afford
fortnightly sessions.

Thanks

mariel

test, please ignore

Hi everyone, hope you all had a decent break over Easter.

I was wondering whether anyone has any videos of ACT in action? I know
that there is a video available showing Steve Hayes getting his hands
dirty with a pretend client, but it's pretty expensive and I can't
afford it, and my course is too tight to buy it...So basically I'm
looking for a bootleg if anyone has one.

Also, below is a link to the FACT paper. Some of you have probably
read it before, but basically it is a paper showing the utility of
combining ACT with Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (Bob Kohlenberg).
FAP basically gives a radical behavioural explanation of some of the
process and within session behaviours most usually associated with the
psychodynamic tradition. So, if you are interested in `transference'
(I use the term VERY loosely) and other within session issues, but
have never accepted the bizarre psychodynamic explanations (and
alluded to fictional complexes etc…) for them, it might be for you.
Either way the article, and indeed the book, are a good read.

http://www.psych.sjsu.edu/~glennc/courses/psyc165/FACT.pdf

Let me know if you have videos...

Cheers

Dave

Hi all

Richard, many thanks for setting this site up and for the invitation to join and hello to all other new members.  In my quest to increase my understanding of Mindfulness I have found a well written and considered book which is available in an on-line web format for free.  Anyone interested can follow the link below.

http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm

Allan

"I have been spending so much time trying to create possible futures that I hadn't seen the rainbows end in which I was standing"

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UKACT/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  UKACT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- 

Dear Richard,

I am sure this has been said before. Lets get the ACT together!

Corny but couldn't resist. I wish I could say it with an American accent!

Sanjay

========================================
> Message date : Mar 23 2005, 08:48 PM
> From : "richardphastings"
> To : UKACT@yahoogroups.com
> Copy to :
> Subject : [UKACT] Record sign-ups?
>
>
> Hi All
>
> 10 sign-ups in just a few hours - that's great! I'm signing off now
> for Easter. Have a good break - all of you that get one.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
> Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/wQ50lB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UKACT/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> UKACT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi All

10 sign-ups in just a few hours - that's great! I'm signing off now
for Easter. Have a good break - all of you that get one.

Richard