Psychotherapy or cult

You are interested in many complex and historically daunting areas of human behavior. Your questions are very broad, seem to emphasize logic, and seem to be aligned with the more "common sense" view of the world. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does make your questions difficult to answer for multiple reasons. I was hoping that the previous post might make it easier for you to take the broader issues you're interested in and help you to pare them into more specific questions. In other words you are asking a multitude of extremely complex questions that many of us have spent a large part of our life investigating. Personally I have spent 14 years on straight behavior analysis (BA) education/practice – literally thousands of hours on JUST behavior analysis. Without having a background (and not just a class or two, but a comprehensive education on the BA field in general) almost any single one of the questions you ask are extremely difficult to frame completely on a medium like a message board from the BA perspective. Also keep in mind the negative stigma BA has in general. IF the general public IS exposed to behavior analysis formally, he or she probably gets an hour or two in a class or two. That training is often done by people who disapprove of BA generally and people usually learn “just enough to be dangerous”. The teachers of the BA material themselves often misunderstand BA also which compounds the problem. Thus if you have been a part of that general public there will be even more barriers to the explanations of our stances.

Even though the answers for any individual of these many questions are both long and complex, to many of us there are very parsimonious and (in comparison to most “world views”) relatively complete answers to many/some of theses broad topics. I will try to address these as best I can but without training in behavior analysis and/or the natural sciences (as opposed to the social sciences and the viewpoints they entail) it is difficult for most people to grasp the subtleties. Again, many of us have studied this for years and we obviously do not have all the answers. As is mentioned on this website, a basic understanding of behavior analysis by practitioners in the fields that deal with human behavior is, in general, very rare in the population as a whole. The field is generally misunderstood and our approaches are often belittled due to lack of comprehension of science and cross-field rhetoric. Even so, let’s attempt to find and accord . I again implore others BA/RFT/ACT specialists to correct my missteps.

This will probably be long…again!

Skinner’s book/work Verbal Behavior (VB): I am not the best scholar regarding this work so I again implore others to chime in where I fail. If you are on this website and have read a good portion of it, you will see many references to inadequacies with his analysis. Many of us feel it is incomplete and thus agree with your assertion. That said Verbal Behavior’s treatment of language as operant behavior was a key step forward because we obviously learn much (if not all) of our ability to use language. Skinner outlined the issue scientifically (i.e., his suppositions were drawn from basic operant/empirical work) for the first time in history. In my opinion, no other field has made an adequate attempt (i.e., others have investigated the issue but their analyses have included “traps“ like “hypothetical entities” in their analysis with no empirical evidence to back them up) to categorize/describe verbal behavior. It is a fantastic taxonomy of language to this day. You are correct to assert the work was inadequate, although incomplete is probably a much better term, but one must also keep in mind that it was (and remained) the best work on language for about a half century. Additionally, like some of Newton’s work, Skinners VB work will be relevant even though it is incomplete. Keeping all of this in mind, VB “alone” never lead to a (significantly) large body of empirical research. The RFT/ACT work found here however is rapidly expanding.

“Conniptions” the Cog. Therapists added: Research does not generally support the utility of additions made by CBT in regard to language. I have attended many symposia on this matter but I cannot say I have the expertise to greatly explain why (although that lack has not seemed to stop me yet  ). I have seen some of the data, read some Hayes, and heard/seen symposia on this but if someone could expound on the data regarding this issue…well that would be just swell. Summary: the evidence exists and the limited parts I have seen seem very strong.

Cognitive mediators: I am not saying these exist or do not exist. However, I would need to know what these mediators are, how we can study them, and/or where they exist before I could discuss the issue much further. Your assumption that cog. med. led to CBT “advances in theory” may or may not be correct. I again do not have the expertise. I am hoping this thread becomes perused by the more knowledgeable so more information can be gleaned. That said, your use of the term “cognitive mediators” (in the context of this message board and my history with such terms) appears to refer to a “mental entity which exists ‘in the mind’ and whose existence is impossible (or at least very difficult) proof”. Explaining events in this way tends to distract from searching for a description of the phenomena in an empirically verifiable manner. This of course does NOT mean that these cog. mediators are fictitious. If you could supply more information on these cog. mediators it would be appreciated. Examples would help tremendously.

Additionally, in response to the “old traps” (further down in your post) the above relates. Unless you can inform me on some cog. mediator research, it is probably a “hypothetical construct”. Depending on one’s definition, the mind is possibly a hypothetical construct as well (e.g., I still use the term mind but my definition is brain activity and/or covert operant behavior usually relating to language, neither of which are hypothetical constructs). You further add that “language explanations” might have the same problems as “mental explanations”. I am not sure what you mean. RFT is not “inherently” a language account although it does seem to help with our understanding of “language relations”. The RFT explanations are testable where is the “existence of mind” (depending on the definition of mind) is not. What issues are of concern? Examples would help tremendously.

Reinforcer Circularity: You are not alone in your puzzlement regarding reinforcement (see opening paragraph). I have taught college students, foster parents, elementary school kids, social workers, direct care providers, my parents, and multiple other populations about reinforcers and the “common sense” view of the term is pervasive. The definition of reinforcer is no more circular than the definition of gravity or any other basic scientific term. I think the reason it appears circular (although, from your brief example, I don’t believe you are worried about circularity as much as you are worried about paradox) is similar to the general populace’s misunderstanding of behavior analysis in general. A reinforcer is defined FUNCTIONALLY not by form. If you asked me, “Is a dollar a reinforcer?” I would have to respond, “Did the dollar follow the response of interest and did the response increase (or remain maintained) along some relevant dimension of that response?”. If both answers are yes, I would then GUESS that the consequence was a reinforcer. Why is it a guess? Because I would need to test to see if I could create and destroy the response using the dollar (in this case). If I gained strong control of the response with relatively strict control of the rest of the environment, then I would be much more secure in my guess (it is still a guess though) that it is a reinforcer. People use the term reinforcer as if it means “something good” when in fact it is a technical definition.

Further, although reinforcer must be a stimulus (i.e., a form of stimulus change whether it is an object/event presentation or removal) that follows an response but to understand reinforcement you must understand the event as a whole. Jack Michael has a great example he used in his intro class at Western Michigan University. He asked the class if a 20 volt shock was a punisher. 80% of the class raised their hands indicating that it IS a punisher. He goes on to ask what would happen if pressing a lever made a shock go from an 80 volt shock to a 20 volt shock. All else being relatively equal, you would expect an organism to press the lever any time the 80v shock was present. The point is this: it is NOT the stimulus itself that is important; what is important is the CHANGE in the stimulus situation. In the case of the 80v -> 20v change in shock, the 20v (or rather the change in intensity) would be a negative (i.e., something is removed…60v in this case) reinforcer (i.e., behavior increases along some dimension of the behavior)…but ONLY if you could show that an increase in the lever pressing was due to the voltage decrease, which is incidentally quite easy to show. There are NO reinforcers in the absence of behavior change/maintenance. This is a topic I can absolutely expound upon more if you wish further explanation. If you want more explanation specific short questions over time will probably yield the greatest understanding.

Philosophy: As far as appealing to philosophers, I believe that our field has been plagued by the TYPES of philosophical responses BA receives from other disciplines. There is a lot of “negative”dogmatism that is directed at the field in general. Many philosophers misunderstandings of BA make them inept at commenting intelligently. Chomsky’s opposition to VB springs to mind. Did Chomsky “win” that debate? It depends who you ask. The “language community at large” (who overwhelmingly do not understand BA) would say yes. The BA community (at least MY BA community) wholeheartedly agrees that Chomsky’s lack of BA understanding was laughable and totally inept (there is a nice paper on this in JEAB - MacCorquodale, K. (1970)). He just did not t understand BA enough to criticize VB adequately. Thus it is difficult to cultivate a cross-field philosophical discussion due to a dearth of non-BA philosophers who understand BA. Additionally, many of the best philosophers I know ARE behavior analysts (I myself have an extra BA in philosophy, not that I am necessarily a “good” philosopher). They are philosophers of science first and foremost. Part of a strong scientific philosophy is that we are exceptionally hard on our colleagues; it is a FANTASTIC behavior analytic tradition. Overall, your broad appeal to “look for philosophical guidance/acceptance” is intelligent in general but particularly problematic. However, if you could explain what specific issues we need to examine philosophically, what types of philosophers we need to include in our own philosophical circles, where we can find informed non-BA philosophers, and what would be the goal of the inclusion of non-scientific philosophers it would possibly be of great value. I am not discounting the value of further philosophical inclusion. I am asking where our philosophical foundation is inadequate.

ACT being scientific/constructivist: Looking at my previous post it appears to me that I still do not have enough information from you to respond adequately. To respond I would need detail on the specific issues you find with our scientific methodology, results, or any other areas in the science with which you are concerned. Is there some data or evidence you find to be erroneous? Is there a type of experimental control you find inadequate? I personally find the evidence compelling and well thought out. The methodology appears consistent with the standards established within the field of BA/natural sciences. If you have some insight on “lack of scientific application” I would enjoy a discussion on the topic. At this time I will need further exposition on your views. If you are concerned with constructivism, please elaborate. Give us your best objective argument so we have a better starting point.

Physical causes: Again I must state from looking at my previous post that it appears that I do not have enough information from you to respond adequately. Here is an attempt.

The short response - Our field is concerned with behavior/environment relations. Although the “internal” environ is of great concern (especially what is commonly known as thought), direct linking of genetic code to brain chemistry is outside our experimental abilities (i.e., Go to biology. Do not pass go. Go directly to biology!). Theses types of biological experiments will be of great interest to us and there could easily be a bidirectional relationship between the fields.

The long response - What do you mean by physical causes? Physical cause could mean many things. Are you are asking whether a person may need medication for severe pain caused by physical trauma? Off the cuff I would assert yes with the addition that behavior management techniques (by which I do not imply any specific type of therapy) could help reduce drug use. If you are talking about predisposition to a disorder, the evidence is not yet clear on what predispositions are (genetic I would assume) or how they work (behavior/environment + genetics in some relation I would assume). Regardless, if predisposition exists (and in some form I am sure it does) we have at least three options: genetic engineering, drugs, and behavior therapy (of some sort).

Genetic engineering is generally outside the BA/RFT/ACT realm – and philosophically troubling to many in general (see the short response) In fact they would almost certainly need us to troubleshoot with the outcomes of their creations.

The second option is drug therapy. This is the current (over)accepted practice. Although this is a relatively valid response (i.e., giving a suicidal persona mood elevator can save his or her life) I view drug “control” as a integral stopgap solution and, for a grand majority of users, not a long term solution (this is a personal ethical opinion). These people should still look for operant help to get off the drugs (and their concommitant “side” effects) and to “take control of their life” (my personal ethical opinion). Further, since the ACT work shows that through operant learning that people can be less affected (or “cured”) by their afflictions, the drug therapy may become (partially) obsolete if the advances continue. Additionally, our lack of knowledge about predisposition and the actual mechanics of chemical composition of the brain on behavior make drug therapy alone a tad scary for me. This combined with our very troublesome diagnostic system make leaves the “drug alone option” very scary (i.e., the current system of diagnosing BY behaviors and then ATTRIBUTNG the responding TO brain chemistry. This is circular reasoning: Why is he acting depressed? Brain chemistry. How do you know it is brain chemistry? He’s acting depressed.). Also consider the popular view is to “fix ‘em” using a drug even if the “disorder” was created purely by learning (overkill). Again, I am neither disparaging use of drugs to “even someone’s mood out” so they do not do something drastic nor implying that predisposition could not “add” or even be a primary impetus to the “creation” of a disorder. However, in the end people will need to do some learning (operant) in order to best deal with their “disorders”. It is outside the realm of BA experimentation to figure out the genetic code that could be responsible for particular brain chemistry issues. The real question is will the biological information inform the BA effort for working with people’s disorders. Perhaps it will or perhaps it will not. Regardless they are interconnected and we must always be mindful that if the information comes along that will add to our operant techniques we should be ready.

The third option is behavior therapy. This is where we excel. We have the tools, the methodologies, the empiricism, and the experience.

These are some reasons we don’t experiment with the “possible” physical causes. This does not me we totally discount them. This does not mean we cannot make use of information. This does not mean we wouldn’t like to have the information. It DOES mean we do not necessarily need the information to make headway (e.g., ACT)

Falsifiability: Let me take another crack at this. Although I THINK my previous post generically provides the answer to this question, perhaps I can clarify. Can you empirically prove the existence of God? Maybe, but for argument’s sake the practical answer is no. What would the methodology be? Same with Freudian hypothetical entities (e.g., go find that id).But the current state of the research shows that you can create and destroy (control) relational network networks (the basic evidence is relatively incontrovertible). Prediction and control are two of the hallmarks of science. The RFT experimental work demonstrates these two qualities. Freud’s did not and religion does not generally experiment. The RFT/ACT is all based on LEARNING. Thus if you CAN learn/”forget” a network then a grand chunk of RFT/ACT is valid. All NATURAL scientific (not social science) fact has been discovered inductively (think about chemistry’s beginnings) with high degrees of prediction and control. RFT/ACT parallels the method, ideals, and philosophy of chemistry…not religion or social sciences. This of course does not contain the “exact” answer to the falsiability question, but it should be adequate to point out the strengths of the RFT and also show that the POTENTIAL is there to show it to be false.

I do get the impression that you have not yet had the chance to read much of the research. Further, you may or may not have the training to digest it. Regardless, the evidence seems to be there. It is relatively strong and any one arguing against it would likely need to do so with a large battery research at this point. The philosophic leanings of the area to me are not a problem at this point.

However, one of the MOST contentious parts of the ACT (and to a much lesser extent the RFT research) that my friends in BA reference is some of the language used. I truly (have to) believe that S. Hayes’s language use is to avoid ACT running into social stigmatization. Behavior analysis has been stigmatized and pigeonholed over other less successful approaches for decades due to our staunch scientific stances, lack of good PR, dogmatic unjustified attacks, and our strict lexicon. I believe that is why he writes the way he does even if it leads to discussion about scientific integrity. The thought behind could easily be that if the language is “mushy” but the “science” is strong that ACT will receive the benefits of both. Regardless you are “dam’ned if you do (one side being a pariah if your PR sucks but the science is tight) and you’re dam’ned if you don’t (write in a user friendly manner so people can see it, experience it, use it…and then get slammed for non-scientific language). This is a difficulty that is relatively unique to the behavioral sciences. I am willing to allow that leeway personally AS LONG AS scientifically valid research keeps coming in a methodical fashion. I totally agree with the RFT preface (pg. xiii) where it is written, “For our part, we think this field (BA) will face it’s own data and make a choice consistent with its own values. We believe the data will win out, and that enough new data emerged to demand the careful attention of basic researchers.” In other words, our field relies primarily in data taken from careful methodology.

That said, all scientists SHOULD be concerned about the philosophical issue you address (i.e., falsifiability). We must always be on guard. Luckily we have a bunch of people who ARE hard on the research and to many of us the research is valid. That does not mean that tomorrow we’ll find a fact that changes our whole opinion. But that is how science progresses. Science is (should be) falliable/self-correcting, parsimonious, and inductive.

I reread this once and if any part is unreadable let me know and I’ll correct it. I hope any colleagues that read this will correct any mistakes and falsehoods.

In practice, all these ways of changing a man's mind reduce to manipulating his environment, verbal or otherwise. Skinner (1969)