Guest guest Posted November 27, 2010 Report Share Posted November 27, 2010 The area of values is the one I find most problematic and difficult to get my head round. How can we follow our own values? Are e all moral philosophers? People can have Christian values and/or Islamic values, Socialist values, Capitalistic values etc. Who's to say who is right? Values may be mistaken, wrong or downright dangerous or cuckoo. My hope lies in human beings' reasoned, scientific, logical values that can be proven to be of benefit to the human race and I believe that these values are and should be universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2010 Report Share Posted November 27, 2010 Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ... If it helps, just replace the word " values " in ACT writings with a made up word and then try to do the work with " beginner's mind " ... as if this who issue is brand new to youour normal discourse on valuesif not quite up to what ACT values work is about. If you have strong views on values (esp. inside a religious/spiritual context) you will have to work esp. hard to see what ACT is sayingand what it adds. The folks on the list can help. When you say " proven to be of benefit " -- ACT values are about that last part. What kind of benefit do you intend?As for the idea that values " are and should be universal " -- religions can take a position like that.ACT cannot -- ACT is about the psychology (and even the science) of valuing as an action. There is no " should " there. There is only " how " and a bit of " and what then happens. " All of the major religious traditions recognize the needfor the psychology of it, so it is not like the ACT part conflicts with spiritual and religious traditions. It is just that ACT is not itself a religion or aspiritual tradition. Religions that make claims of universal values virtually alwayssave a piece for psychology in this way: they lay out the values and then say you have to CHOOSE them; you have to receive the wisdom; you have to make an act of faith;you have to recognize them; etc etc. They require an action of valuing.That is the part ACT is working on.How to do such a thing (and the science of what happens when you do). Religious people can put that act into a religious contextbut valuing occurs in other contexts.It's not in conflict. But religious belief will not alone do what ACT isteaching ... but then again, major religions themselves say valuing is required for religious values to make a difference- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062 " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing " hayes@... or stevenchayes@...Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): Blogs: Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mindHuffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site: http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes or you can try my website (not really quite functional yet) stevenchayes.com If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost starts at a dollar. If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join The area of values is the one I find most problematic and difficult to get my head round. How can we follow our own values? Are e all moral philosophers? People can have Christian values and/or Islamic values, Socialist values, Capitalistic values etc. Who's to say who is right? Values may be mistaken, wrong or downright dangerous or cuckoo. My hope lies in human beings' reasoned, scientific, logical values that can be proven to be of benefit to the human race and I believe that these values are and should be universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 > > Thanks for your reply professor but I'm not sure I really > understand your reply. Are you saying that the means justify > the ends? Does one's comfort/well-being really take precedence > over what is right and true? >> >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ... Hugh, Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking, if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but with your back to the target as well. Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are looking to understand. As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are interested. I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too. Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those times I do I nearly always grow a little. Good luck to you whatever you choose - - Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 It seems to me (and I'm probably wrong!) that ACT takes no " universal " moral stance *at all*, and doesn't claim to. Rather it provides the individual with techniques to clarify and fulfil their own values (which may or may not be " moral " in the classic sense). It's a psychotherapy, not a religion or philosophical system. It makes no more sense to criticise ACT for this " lack " than it does to criticise (say) Pilates. bb > >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ... > > Hugh, > > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking, > if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but > with your back to the target as well. > > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear > what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to > brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are > looking to understand. > > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And > don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial > since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on > concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list > as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are > interested. > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are > we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be > helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with > ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too. > > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and > go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say > and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and > open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a > closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own > experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my > defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other > days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down > for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those > times I do I nearly always grow a little. > > Good luck to you whatever you choose - > > - Randy > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 After reading this exchange and contributing to it and maybe reading it quite differently from others, I have a few thoughts which I hope will be taken the right way (well this is internet mediated communication, which isn't exactly perfect, is it!). Just because someone asks questions that doesn't have to mean they are being critical or even rhetorical, does it? Sometimes I have dared to ask questions here and wish I hadn't but I know my motivation is not to undermine ACT or anyone trying to work out their values. It's to learn from others. Sometimes I am glad others have asked questions for me. Maybe we all have different life experiences that colour the sort of questions we feel the need to explore? In my case it is doubt. in fact OCD, questioning my right to assert my own values. I have NEVER seen values as rules for behaviour as Russ suggested often causes confusion with the ACT meaning of values - I have always questioned "religious values". I would love not to but I always feel I need to be fair to others whose values may conflict with mine. I can trace that need to be fair and the resulting conflict back to difficult circumstances growing up, enforced silence in the family. Speaking not allowed, conflict over whether to speak out about values I thought were dodgy and risk punbishment. Before anyone suggests the answer is not to search for root causes I know and ACCEPT that!. However, it's taken me decades to find my voice and risk asking questions but when I do it can hurt to have my motivation (values?) questioned as a result. Am I the only one who feels that way at times? That someone asks a question here does not mean they aren't doing their ACT homework does it? S. Subject: Re: VALUESTo: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 11:08 It seems to me (and I'm probably wrong!) that ACT takes no "universal" moral stance *at all*, and doesn't claim to. Rather it provides the individual with techniques to clarify and fulfil their own values (which may or may not be "moral" in the classic sense). It's a psychotherapy, not a religion or philosophical system. It makes no more sense to criticise ACT for this "lack" than it does to criticise (say) Pilates.bb> >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ...> > Hugh,> > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking,> if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but> with your back to the target as well.> > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear> what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to> brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are> looking to understand.> > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And> don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial> since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on> concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list> as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are> interested. > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are> we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be> helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with> ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too.> > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and> go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say> and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and> open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a> closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own> experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my> defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other> days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down> for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those> times I do I nearly always grow a little.> > Good luck to you whatever you choose -> > - Randy> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Apologies to any and all if I have come across as harsh or abusive in this thread. This was not my intention but sometimes my fingers run faster than my head and heart. I am glad to be corrected as in this case. Concerns about morality are totally valid and occupy me as well. So I don't mean to be dismissive of that. My real point is that informed questions are better than uninformed questions, not only with ACT but with any subject. - R.  After reading this exchange and contributing to it and maybe reading it quite differently from others, I have a few thoughts which I hope will be taken the right way (well this is internet mediated communication, which isn't exactly perfect, is it!).  Just because someone asks questions that doesn't have to mean they are being critical or even rhetorical, does it?  Sometimes I have dared to ask questions here and wish I hadn't but I know my motivation is not to undermine ACT or anyone trying to work out their values. It's to learn from others.  Sometimes I am glad others have asked questions for me.  Maybe we all have different life experiences that colour the sort of questions we feel the need to explore?  In my case it is doubt. in fact OCD, questioning my right to assert my own values. I have NEVER seen values as rules for behaviour as Russ suggested often causes confusion with the ACT meaning of values - I have always questioned "religious values". I would love not to but I always feel I need to be fair to others whose values may conflict with mine.  I can trace that need to be fair and the resulting conflict back to difficult circumstances growing up, enforced silence in the family. Speaking not allowed, conflict over whether to speak out about values I thought were dodgy and risk punbishment. Before anyone suggests the answer is not to search for root causes I know and ACCEPT that!.  However, it's taken me decades to find my voice and risk asking questions but when I do it can hurt to have my motivation (values?) questioned as a result. Am I the only one who feels that way at times?  That someone asks a question here does not mean they aren't doing their ACT homework does it?  S. Subject: Re: VALUES To: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 11:08  It seems to me (and I'm probably wrong!) that ACT takes no "universal" moral stance *at all*, and doesn't claim to. Rather it provides the individual with techniques to clarify and fulfil their own values (which may or may not be "moral" in the classic sense). It's a psychotherapy, not a religion or philosophical system. It makes no more sense to criticise ACT for this "lack" than it does to criticise (say) Pilates. bb > >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ... > > Hugh, > > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking, > if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but > with your back to the target as well. > > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear > what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to > brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are > looking to understand. > > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And > don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial > since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on > concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list > as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are > interested. > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are > we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be > helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with > ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too. > > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and > go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say > and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and > open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a > closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own > experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my > defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other > days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down > for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those > times I do I nearly always grow a little. > > Good luck to you whatever you choose - > > - Randy > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Soozy, thank you for finding your voice and having the courage to express your point of view--bravo--you are growing! I was thinking along the same lines. And Randy, I appreciate your responding so graciously and clarifying your intention. You have a valid and very interesting point about informed questions being better than uninformed ones. We will learn and grow from the former but will quickly get stuck in verbal quicksand with the latter. I never really gave that much consideration before -- that just as much thought should be given to the content of our questions as to the content of our responses. Helena Re: VALUESTo: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 11:08 It seems to me (and I'm probably wrong!) that ACT takes no "universal" moral stance *at all*, and doesn't claim to. Rather it provides the individual with techniques to clarify and fulfil their own values (which may or may not be "moral" in the classic sense). It's a psychotherapy, not a religion or philosophical system. It makes no more sense to criticise ACT for this "lack" than it does to criticise (say) Pilates.bb> >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ...> > Hugh,> > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking,> if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but> with your back to the target as well.> > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear> what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to> brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are> looking to understand.> > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And> don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial> since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on> concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list> as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are> interested. > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are> we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be> helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with> ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too.> > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and> go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say> and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and> open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a> closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own> experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my> defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other> days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down> for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those> times I do I nearly always grow a little.> > Good luck to you whatever you choose -> > - Randy> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 ACT is an individual lifestyle choice. Values are what we individually want to be. Nothing more, nothing less.> To: ACT_for_the_Public > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:08:21 +0000> Subject: Re: VALUES> > It seems to me (and I'm probably wrong!) that ACT takes no "universal" moral stance *at all*, and doesn't claim to. Rather it provides the individual with techniques to clarify and fulfil their own values (which may or may not be "moral" in the classic sense). It's a psychotherapy, not a religion or philosophical system. It makes no more sense to criticise ACT for this "lack" than it does to criticise (say) Pilates.> > bb> > > > > >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ...> > > > Hugh,> > > > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking,> > if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but> > with your back to the target as well.> > > > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear> > what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to> > brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are> > looking to understand.> > > > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And> > don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial> > since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on> > concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list> > as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are> > interested. > > > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are> > we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be> > helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with> > ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too.> > > > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and> > go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say> > and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and> > open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a> > closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own> > experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my> > defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other> > days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down> > for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those> > times I do I nearly always grow a little.> > > > Good luck to you whatever you choose -> > > > - Randy> >> > > > > ------------------------------------> > For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org> > If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may > unsubscribe by sending an email to > ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links> > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/> > <*> Your email settings:> Individual Email | Traditional> > <*> To change settings online go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join> (Yahoo! ID required)> > <*> To change settings via email:> ACT_for_the_Public-digest > ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured > > <*> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Right on Soozy. Keep speaking up. You have the knack of being able to walk the fine line between questioning and confronting. BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: soozy128@...Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:59:46 +0000Subject: Re: Re: VALUES After reading this exchange and contributing to it and maybe reading it quite differently from others, I have a few thoughts which I hope will be taken the right way (well this is internet mediated communication, which isn't exactly perfect, is it!). Just because someone asks questions that doesn't have to mean they are being critical or even rhetorical, does it? Sometimes I have dared to ask questions here and wish I hadn't but I know my motivation is not to undermine ACT or anyone trying to work out their values. It's to learn from others. Sometimes I am glad others have asked questions for me. Maybe we all have different life experiences that colour the sort of questions we feel the need to explore? In my case it is doubt. in fact OCD, questioning my right to assert my own values. I have NEVER seen values as rules for behaviour as Russ suggested often causes confusion with the ACT meaning of values - I have always questioned "religious values". I would love not to but I always feel I need to be fair to others whose values may conflict with mine. I can trace that need to be fair and the resulting conflict back to difficult circumstances growing up, enforced silence in the family. Speaking not allowed, conflict over whether to speak out about values I thought were dodgy and risk punbishment. Before anyone suggests the answer is not to search for root causes I know and ACCEPT that!. However, it's taken me decades to find my voice and risk asking questions but when I do it can hurt to have my motivation (values?) questioned as a result. Am I the only one who feels that way at times? That someone asks a question here does not mean they aren't doing their ACT homework does it? S. Subject: Re: VALUESTo: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 11:08 It seems to me (and I'm probably wrong!) that ACT takes no "universal" moral stance *at all*, and doesn't claim to. Rather it provides the individual with techniques to clarify and fulfil their own values (which may or may not be "moral" in the classic sense). It's a psychotherapy, not a religion or philosophical system. It makes no more sense to criticise ACT for this "lack" than it does to criticise (say) Pilates.bb> >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ...> > Hugh,> > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking,> if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but> with your back to the target as well.> > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear> what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to> brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are> looking to understand.> > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And> don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial> since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on> concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list> as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are> interested. > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are> we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be> helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with> ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too.> > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and> go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say> and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and> open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a> closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own> experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my> defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other> days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down> for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those> times I do I nearly always grow a little.> > Good luck to you whatever you choose -> > - Randy> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 RandyThanks for your input here.It would not be the first time I've "missed the mark" and it probably won't be the last so please forgive me if I miss the mark again and shoot the wrong way blindly as you kindly pointed out to me. Maybe, unlike most people on the list, I just don't understand it. I wish I was as clever as the rest of you.I actually have been doing the exercises for quite some time but I'm particularly stuck and confused at the values bit. The other stuff is experiential and practical so I fine with that but I've got to engage my imperfect brain when it comes to working out my values and separating them out from my instincts and prior conditioning and this could be causing me some inner turmoil that is transforming into anger and frustration.Maybe ACT is just not for me as, to be honest, I don't feel it registers much on my radar. Do you have to have significant problems to appreciate its efficacy? Would you say that ACT can be used as a self-development/improvement tool? Am I asking the right questions? Please be gentle with your reply. >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ... Hugh, Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking, if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but with your back to the target as well. Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are looking to understand. As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are interested. I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too. Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those times I do I nearly always grow a little. Good luck to you whatever you choose - - Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Randy - I do not think you post was harsh or abrasive in the context in which is was offered. You simply communicated at the appropriate level. BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: usable.thought@...Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:19:25 -0500Subject: Re: Re: VALUES Apologies to any and all if I have come across as harsh or abusive in this thread. This was not my intention but sometimes my fingers run faster than my head and heart. I am glad to be corrected as in this case. Concerns about morality are totally valid and occupy me as well. So I don't mean to be dismissive of that. My real point is that informed questions are better than uninformed questions, not only with ACT but with any subject. - R. After reading this exchange and contributing to it and maybe reading it quite differently from others, I have a few thoughts which I hope will be taken the right way (well this is internet mediated communication, which isn't exactly perfect, is it!). Just because someone asks questions that doesn't have to mean they are being critical or even rhetorical, does it? Sometimes I have dared to ask questions here and wish I hadn't but I know my motivation is not to undermine ACT or anyone trying to work out their values. It's to learn from others. Sometimes I am glad others have asked questions for me. Maybe we all have different life experiences that colour the sort of questions we feel the need to explore? In my case it is doubt. in fact OCD, questioning my right to assert my own values. I have NEVER seen values as rules for behaviour as Russ suggested often causes confusion with the ACT meaning of values - I have always questioned "religious values". I would love not to but I always feel I need to be fair to others whose values may conflict with mine. I can trace that need to be fair and the resulting conflict back to difficult circumstances growing up, enforced silence in the family. Speaking not allowed, conflict over whether to speak out about values I thought were dodgy and risk punbishment. Before anyone suggests the answer is not to search for root causes I know and ACCEPT that!. However, it's taken me decades to find my voice and risk asking questions but when I do it can hurt to have my motivation (values?) questioned as a result. Am I the only one who feels that way at times? That someone asks a question here does not mean they aren't doing their ACT homework does it? S. Subject: Re: VALUES To: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 11:08 It seems to me (and I'm probably wrong!) that ACT takes no "universal" moral stance *at all*, and doesn't claim to. Rather it provides the individual with techniques to clarify and fulfil their own values (which may or may not be "moral" in the classic sense). It's a psychotherapy, not a religion or philosophical system. It makes no more sense to criticise ACT for this "lack" than it does to criticise (say) Pilates. bb > >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ... > > Hugh, > > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking, > if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but > with your back to the target as well. > > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear > what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to > brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are > looking to understand. > > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And > don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial > since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on > concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list > as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are > interested. > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are > we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be > helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with > ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too. > > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and > go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say > and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and > open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a > closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own > experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my > defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other > days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down > for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those > times I do I nearly always grow a little. > > Good luck to you whatever you choose - > > - Randy > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Randy,Yeah, it's super hard for me too. I read some of the Acceptance and Mindfulness Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change by and and Kirk Strosahl. Early chapters are on FC. I checked it out twice from library but only got part way each time before it was due back. I read Russ' chapter that was cut from his book ACT Made Simple on FC and behavior analysis - available free from website for that book. But for now I'm going to put it off. It's too taxing on my brain now - I have other things going on. Also, I recall people here talking about a tutorial or something on 's contextual psychology website. Perhaps I'll check that out sometime later.Also starting about 2004 I got interested in philosophy and bought and read a lot of philosophy books. Filled a couple bookcases. Spent a lot of time reading some of them, including lectures on Pragmatism. This summer I decided to stop my study of philosophy for now and put books up for sale. Anyway, I sort of tired of Philosophy for now and don't want to put in the effort now. I did replace most of my books with Kindle version - most were either free or $1 from Amazon. I don't have kindle yet so even though I can read them on my computer I've decided put the philosophy study on the shelf for now. So, I guess I'm just saying here is I don't want to put in effort to study FC right now.My focus on ACT so far has been on the just the A part I guess - the left 4 vertices of the hexaflex. So I guess I've so far been doing mainly just AT. I need to put in the C to make it ACT. I did do some of a DBT workbook on values. But not a lot in the ACT books as of yet. So, I'll let you guys carry on on this conversation on values, etc. I'm going to drop out and focus on other things.Cheers, > > And even if it's not the case that FC advocates moral > relativism, any appearance that it does can result in serious > problems undermining ACT. , I agree that intellectual curiosity is a good thing & much better than dogma. If you are interested in functional contextualism, I would suggest reading more than just Wikipedia - it is a super-hard topic, at least for me & I assume for other laypeople. There are a lot of resources available on the ACBS Web site (http://contextualpsychology.org) - you can join for $1 if you so choose & download PDFs explaining more about this & other aspects of behavior analysis. It's all pretty heavy going because it's so technical, but still interesting. Technical stuff aside, the purpose of functional contextualism has nothing at all to do with promoting moral relativism, and everything to do with finding and improving ways to help people help themselves. But definitely don't take my word for it - do some reading. It may make your head hurt but hey that's the breaks. - Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Does anyone know if the book: Acceptance and Mindfulness Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior, has a new edition out soon? I read that one is due in 2010. Don't want to buy the old one if I can wait a bit and get the new one.Cheers,Jim To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 8:17:22 AMSubject: Re: Re: VALUES Randy,Yeah, it's super hard for me too. I read some of the Acceptance and Mindfulness Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change by and and Kirk Strosahl. Early chapters are on FC. I checked it out twice from library but only got part way each time before it was due back. I read Russ' chapter that was cut from his book ACT Made Simple on FC and behavior analysis - available free from website for that book. But for now I'm going to put it off. It's too taxing on my brain now - I have other things going on. Also, I recall people here talking about a tutorial or something on 's contextual psychology website. Perhaps I'll check that out sometime later.Also starting about 2004 I got interested in philosophy and bought and read a lot of philosophy books. Filled a couple bookcases. Spent a lot of time reading some of them, including lectures on Pragmatism. This summer I decided to stop my study of philosophy for now and put books up for sale. Anyway, I sort of tired of Philosophy for now and don't want to put in the effort now. I did replace most of my books with Kindle version - most were either free or $1 from Amazon. I don't have kindle yet so even though I can read them on my computer I've decided put the philosophy study on the shelf for now. So, I guess I'm just saying here is I don't want to put in effort to study FC right now.My focus on ACT so far has been on the just the A part I guess - the left 4 vertices of the hexaflex. So I guess I've so far been doing mainly just AT. I need to put in the C to make it ACT. I did do some of a DBT workbook on values. But not a lot in the ACT books as of yet. So, I'll let you guys carry on on this conversation on values, etc. I'm going to drop out and focus on other things.Cheers, > > And even if it's not the case that FC advocates moral > relativism, any appearance that it does can result in serious > problems undermining ACT. , I agree that intellectual curiosity is a good thing & much better than dogma. If you are interested in functional contextualism, I would suggest reading more than just Wikipedia - it is a super-hard topic, at least for me & I assume for other laypeople. There are a lot of resources available on the ACBS Web site (http://contextualpsychology.org) - you can join for $1 if you so choose & download PDFs explaining more about this & other aspects of behavior analysis. It's all pretty heavy going because it's so technical, but still interesting. Technical stuff aside, the purpose of functional contextualism has nothing at all to do with promoting moral relativism, and everything to do with finding and improving ways to help people help themselves. But definitely don't take my word for it - do some reading. It may make your head hurt but hey that's the breaks. - Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 I think anything beyond Russ's "House of ACT" (I think that was the title of his missing chapter) would probably be overkill for anyone other than the real officionados.(no idea at all how to spell that last word.....) xTo: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Mon, 13 December, 2010 1:17:22Subject: Re: Re: VALUES Randy,Yeah, it's super hard for me too. I read some of the Acceptance and Mindfulness Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change by and and Kirk Strosahl. Early chapters are on FC. I checked it out twice from library but only got part way each time before it was due back. I read Russ' chapter that was cut from his book ACT Made Simple on FC and behavior analysis - available free from website for that book. But for now I'm going to put it off. It's too taxing on my brain now - I have other things going on. Also, I recall people here talking about a tutorial or something on 's contextual psychology website. Perhaps I'll check that out sometime later.Also starting about 2004 I got interested in philosophy and bought and read a lot of philosophy books. Filled a couple bookcases. Spent a lot of time reading some of them, including lectures on Pragmatism. This summer I decided to stop my study of philosophy for now and put books up for sale. Anyway, I sort of tired of Philosophy for now and don't want to put in the effort now. I did replace most of my books with Kindle version - most were either free or $1 from Amazon. I don't have kindle yet so even though I can read them on my computer I've decided put the philosophy study on the shelf for now. So, I guess I'm just saying here is I don't want to put in effort to study FC right now.My focus on ACT so far has been on the just the A part I guess - the left 4 vertices of the hexaflex. So I guess I've so far been doing mainly just AT. I need to put in the C to make it ACT. I did do some of a DBT workbook on values. But not a lot in the ACT books as of yet. So, I'll let you guys carry on on this conversation on values, etc. I'm going to drop out and focus on other things.Cheers, > > And even if it's not the case that FC advocates moral > relativism, any appearance that it does can result in serious > problems undermining ACT. , I agree that intellectual curiosity is a good thing & much better than dogma. If you are interested in functional contextualism, I would suggest reading more than just Wikipedia - it is a super-hard topic, at least for me & I assume for other laypeople. There are a lot of resources available on the ACBS Web site (http://contextualpsychology.org) - you can join for $1 if you so choose & download PDFs explaining more about this & other aspects of behavior analysis. It's all pretty heavy going because it's so technical, but still interesting. Technical stuff aside, the purpose of functional contextualism has nothing at all to do with promoting moral relativism, and everything to do with finding and improving ways to help people help themselves. But definitely don't take my word for it - do some reading. It may make your head hurt but hey that's the breaks. - Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 aficionados....;-)Regards, > > And even if it's not the case that FC advocates moral > relativism, any appearance that it does can result in serious > problems undermining ACT. , I agree that intellectual curiosity is a good thing & much better than dogma. If you are interested in functional contextualism, I would suggest reading more than just Wikipedia - it is a super-hard topic, at least for me & I assume for other laypeople. There are a lot of resources available on the ACBS Web site (http://contextualpsychology.org) - you can join for $1 if you so choose & download PDFs explaining more about this & other aspects of behavior analysis. It's all pretty heavy going because it's so technical, but still interesting. Technical stuff aside, the purpose of functional contextualism has nothing at all to do with promoting moral relativism, and everything to do with finding and improving ways to help people help themselves. But definitely don't take my word for it - do some reading. It may make your head hurt but hey that's the breaks. - Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Hugh, I think perhaps bb meant to say "would that be good enough evidence for you ... to convince you to embrace ACT as a therapy that could help you live a value-driven life. I believe the research has shown that ACT is more efficacious than CBT, but the professionals could speak to that. I think one of them recently posted something on that; I'll have to check the archives. Helena Re: VALUESTo: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 13:32 Hi Hugh,Maybe one way to look at this is empirically. From the research, does it seem to you that ACT is "conducive to human flourishing"? If so, would that be good enough for you?bb> > >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ...> > > > Hugh,> > > > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking,> > if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but> > with your back to the target as well.> > > > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear> > what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to> > brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are> > looking to understand.> > > > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And> > don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial> > since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on> > concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list> > as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are> > interested. > > > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are> > we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be> > helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with> > ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too.> > > > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and> > go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say> > and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and> > open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a> > closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own> > experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my> > defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other> > days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down> > for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those> > times I do I nearly always grow a little.> > > > Good luck to you whatever you choose -> > > > - Randy> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Depends on the disorder and the study whether ACT has been shown to be more efficacious. But, studies have usually shown that results from ACT are equal to CBT, or superior. Thing is, basic behavioral science has shown that the assumptions behind cognitive restructuring-type interventions don't hold up (that is, there isn't much evidence that " thinking positively " is actually a helpful thing to do -- in fact, for some, it may be harmful -- http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/156403.php). CBT might work mainly because of the " BT " part -- the behavioral part, the part that says " get moving! " But this element is also a major part of ACT (the committed action piece). There aren't as many studies out there on ACT as a therapy than CBT, so it's not as well-supported as CBT yet, but this may be because CBT has been around longer -- ACT, as a newer therapy, of course won't have as many studies out there. Also, since ACT is a newer therapy, it is more difficult to get grant funding for an ACT study than a CBT study. So, it is slow-going. Here is a link that might be helpful to those who are interested in looking at the evidence in comparing ACT and CBT:http://contextualpsychology.org/node/3590 In my opinion, ACT is superior because it is more precise philosophically and has a stronger backing in basic behavioral research. Hugh, I think perhaps bb meant to say " would that be good enough evidence for you ... to convince you to embrace ACT as a therapy that could help you live a value-driven life. I believe the research has shown that ACT is more efficacious than CBT, but the professionals could speak to that. I think one of them recently posted something on that; I'll have to check the archives. Helena Re: VALUES To: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 13:32 Hi Hugh,Maybe one way to look at this is empirically. From the research, does it seem to you that ACT is " conducive to human flourishing " ? If so, would that be good enough for you? bb > > >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ...> > > > Hugh,> > > > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking, > > if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but> > with your back to the target as well.> > > > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear > > what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to> > brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are> > looking to understand.> > > > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And > > don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial> > since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on> > concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list > > as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are> > interested. > > > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are> > we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be > > helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with> > ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too.> > > > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and > > go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say> > and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and> > open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a > > closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own> > experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my> > defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other > > days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down> > for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those> > times I do I nearly always grow a little.> > > > Good luck to you whatever you choose -> > > > - Randy> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Just a thought from me on comparing ACT with CBT. Remember that ACT is sometimes called 3rd wave CBT and that you have to know what kind of CBT you are comparing it with and, as you say, , CBT aimed at what disorder before you can fairly make any comparisons. ACT chose to call itself by a new name while other developments of CBT have kept the old name or added to it like MCBT. Read what it says here for example: "The three primary forms of CBT that are emphasized at The New York Center for Mindfulness, Acceptance and Compassion Focused Therapies are ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), CFT (Compassion Focused Therapy), and MBCT (Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy). " http://mindfulcompassion.com/Mindfulcompassion/About_our_approach_to_CBT.html I don't know anything about this NY treatment centre but I hope they aren't using the term CBT fraudulently to get customers for something that isn't CBT! My experience of CBT for OCD has definitely not been about cognitive restructuring or trying to get rid of thoughts. CBT is still developing! The cognitive interventions I learnt to use doing CBT looked at overvaluing thoughts (buying into thoughts?), the problems involved in trying to control thoughts and many more ideas that ACT seems to have included as well. There are obviously differences and maybe important ones but even so if you are comparing ACT and CBT you do have to decide exactly what it is you are comparing. I agree there will be many old-fashioned CBT practitioners out there but also some who are flexible enough to be able to incorporate new research! Oh and flexibility was something else I had to learn to value. I had 10 years of supportive therapy from someone who had very old-fashioned ideas about CBT by the way (his early training which included a brief spell watching OCD contamination patients being forced to do extreme exposures clearly upset him and put him off cBT for ever!) He said how damaging it would be for me to try CBT as I was too ill and fragile to do it. How wrong he was while being the most caring therapist you could hope for. CBT has probably shot itself in the foot for keeping the same name while continuing to develop. It enables people to compare ACT with almost anything as far as I can tell! I'm looking forward to the book has mentioned comparing different therapies. S. Subject: Re: VALUES To: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 13:32 Hi Hugh,Maybe one way to look at this is empirically. From the research, does it seem to you that ACT is "conducive to human flourishing"? If so, would that be good enough for you?bb> > >> Well dig a bit deeper. Do the actual exercises etc ... > > > > Hugh,> > > > Your rhetorical questions miss the mark. Metaphorically speaking,> > if you were an archer you would not only be shooting blind, but> > with your back to the target as well.> > > > Try putting down your bow for a moment. I think it's pretty clear> > what Steve meant. It's what anyone here would tell you - not to> > brainwash or convert you, but to help you understand if you are> > looking to understand.> > > > As he said: dig a bit deeper. Get an ACT workbook and read it. And> > don't just read it, but do the exercises. Participation is crucial> > since ACT is based on your own experience rather than just on> > concepts. And if you wish, post questions to the folks on this list> > as you go along. You will get farther this way - if you are> > interested. > > > > I guess that's the nub. As we go along in life, how interested are> > we in opening up to something new and a little scary that might be> > helpful, but that we don't understand? It can happen not just with> > ideas but with people and cultures who are different from us too.> > > > Always we have a choice: We can keep our preconceptions intact, and> > go on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say> > and do not mean; or we can declare at least a temporary truce and> > open up to the possibility of listening and learning. One path is a> > closed heart, the other is an open heart. I know from my own> > experience how tempting it is to close down and maintain my> > defenses; it is my default option on my more difficult days. Other> > days I feel strong enough to consider laying those defenses down> > for a time, even though it is scary and I feel vulnerable. Those> > times I do I nearly always grow a little.> > > > Good luck to you whatever you choose -> > > > - Randy> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.