DJ Moran - Demystifying Relational Frame Theory (RFT)

[@tracymarshall-johnson1417]

Impossible to focus on the speaker because the background noise was so bad :(

[@unknowntexan4570]

This seems like a behaviorist "translation" of schema. Relating is logic, specifically in the first instance, A=B, B=A, derived, is simply a tautology, a basic rational schema. It rejects mentalism explicitly, but functionally RFT is nothing but mentalism.

[@RyanSmith82]

You don't understand RFT.

[@unknowntexan4570]

Ryan Smith Probably not, but I'm having difficulty in finding a reason why RFT brackets mentalism out. Isn't language and symbolic logic, the most rudimentary form of a mental model?

[@richardvanromunde4188]

@@unknowntexan4570 Tl;dr: RFT alone doesn't rule out mentalism. The foundational principles do (such as functional contextualism and behavioral pragmatism). RFT holds true within these principles and therefore can be viewed as not mentalistic. Long version: I'm a bit late to the party, but if you don't mind I'd still like to add to the discussion. The way RFT is not menatlistic is that the processes of language are not different for spoken language or 'thinking' language. Where as within menatlism the processes of the mind are assumed to be different from observable or external behaviour (e.g. working memory, attention, attitudes are said to be different processes from blushing, looking, tooth brushing, etc.). When taken RFT alone you can easily relate it to shema's. They probealy point to overlapping instances. However the principles on which it is founded are very different, being Functional Contextualism (FC) vs Cognitive psychology/mechanism. Because RFT holds true against FC and FC rejects mentalism, RFT can be said to be a non-mentalistic theory. These pricinples of FC, more then RFT itself, were transformative in the way I do therapy. One example is that, from a FC perspective, as a clincian I'm part of the context of my client. Because behaviour is seen as the interaction with one's context, because of this I've come to appreciate the therapeutic relation on a different level. The therapeutic relation being the interaction. From a mechanistic perspective the focus lies much more at the client herself then on the interaction (i.e. the mechanisms within the client). Another example: from a mechanistic perpsective I tend to think that we are more inclined to fix people's mental issues, like you fix a machine that's broken. From a contextual perspective nothing is broken, because every behaviour has a function within the context and the history (previous acts-in-contexts) of the client. RFT added for me to this the insight how I can change how people talk or think* abouth them selves and others and bout their relation to others. *which from a FC perspective is the same process: Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding (AARRing)

[@omvendthammer]

Too bad the sound is horrible