Re: Looking for feedback on a blog post about ACT

[Guest guest]

Hi Randy - You are very ambitious! I posted a comment to your blog which refers to what Russ calls "The House of ACT" chapter 3, in his book "ACT MADE SIMPLE. It helps clear up the tricky stuff. I think he has also posted this chapter on his website. It discusses how ACT is like the top floor of a three story mansion. Relational frame theory (RFT) is the second floor; applied behavior analysis (ABA) is the first floor and functional contextualism (FC) is the ground on which the mansion is built. I also mention Niklas Torneke's book on RFT. I can loan it to you (I think) on Kindle if you are interested.Thanks for your hard work.Bill> To: ACT_for_the_Public > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:36:27 +0000> Subject: Looking for feedback on a blog post about ACT> > Hi all, > > I've got a new piece on my blog about ACT that I would appreciate feedback on - you can find it here:> > http://storyandantistory.org/2011/07/the-rules-we-follow-for-who-we-are/> > Basically I'm looking to refine how I write about ACT, with an eye toward a wider audience at some point (not yet determined what the format might be, or when). It's tricky stuff & I'd appreciate any gut reactions you might have, pro or con. You can comment either on the blog itself (there is a Comments feature) or here, or else backchannel to me directly.> > thanks!> 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 > > <*>

[Guest guest]

Hey Bill,

(This is a repeat of my comment back to you on the blog - if other folks see it,

maybe it will help explain what I am looking for.)

Thanks for your feedback. I actually have all the books you name and more. What

I am aiming to do is not quite what has already been done, or what those books

do, for that matter, but something different altogether.

I think maybe if you gave me a gut reaction it would be more helpful - i.e.

something like " As I read the beginning of this, I was fine until I got to the

part about blah-blah-blah, at which point I really started thinking

such-and-such. Then when I reached the end, I realized that I had another

reaction, which was such-and-such. "

thanks!

Randy

>

>

> Hi Randy -

> You are very ambitious! I posted a comment to your blog which refers to what

Russ calls " The House of ACT " chapter 3, in his book " ACT MADE SIMPLE. It

helps clear up the tricky stuff. I think he has also posted this chapter on his

website. It discusses how ACT is like the top floor of a three story mansion.

Relational frame theory (RFT) is the second floor; applied behavior analysis

(ABA) is the first floor and functional contextualism (FC) is the ground on

which the mansion is built. I also mention Niklas Torneke's book on RFT. I can

loan it to you (I think) on Kindle if you are interested.

> Thanks for your hard work.

> Bill

> > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > From: usable.thought@...

> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:36:27 +0000

> > Subject: Looking for feedback on a blog post about ACT

> >

> > Hi all,

> >

> > I've got a new piece on my blog about ACT that I would appreciate feedback

on - you can find it here:

> >

> > http://storyandantistory.org/2011/07/the-rules-we-follow-for-who-we-are/

> >

> > Basically I'm looking to refine how I write about ACT, with an eye toward a

wider audience at some point (not yet determined what the format might be, or

when). It's tricky stuff & I'd appreciate any gut reactions you might have, pro

or con. You can comment either on the blog itself (there is a Comments feature)

or here, or else backchannel to me directly.

> >

> > thanks!

> > 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

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Randy

It's an interesting read, and got me thinking. In fact I was rabbiting on a bit

about one of my colleagues today in the manner you describe - so I could

definitely relate!

For me the section about language seemed to be drifting off on a tangent and it

was hard to see its direct relevance to the overall theme of the article. I'm

not sure it helped me gain a better understanding of the " unnoticed rules we

follow " , if anything it seemed to confuse the issue, and brought in an

unnecessary " sub-plot " .. For me, that whole section about language could be

omitted. But that's just my opinion - for what it's worth! :-)

Cheers

Kate

>

> Hi all,

>

> I've got a new piece on my blog about ACT that I would appreciate feedback on

- you can find it here:

>

> http://storyandantistory.org/2011/07/the-rules-we-follow-for-who-we-are/

>

> Basically I'm looking to refine how I write about ACT, with an eye toward a

wider audience at some point (not yet determined what the format might be, or

when). It's tricky stuff & I'd appreciate any gut reactions you might have, pro

or con. You can comment either on the blog itself (there is a Comments feature)

or here, or else backchannel to me directly.

>

> thanks!

> Randy

>

[Guest guest]

> For me the section about language seemed to be drifting off on a tangent

> and it was hard to see its direct relevance to the overall theme of the

article.

Hi Kate,

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of feedback I " m looking for.

R.

[Guest guest]

HI Randy,

A very interesting read! I've read it carefully three times, and here are my thoughts (and I feel a little dense in bringing up some of these things, as though I should have "gotten it"):

1. Many concepts are mentioned - ACT, self-conceptualization, literality, how language works - but, at the end, I'm unclear how all these things are related or interact. There are so many words and examples to read through that I was unable to see the overall thread, purpose or conclusion of the article.

2. This is confusing to me: "seeing our own rules for what they are" ... "as a form of self-forgiveness"

3. "We have broken a rule we are barely conscious of." I had to stop and ask myself, "What rule was broken?" That I made another person "bad" or that I felt "bad" for doing so?

4. "What’s going on here? Why did criticizing your co-worker make you so uncomfortable you felt you had to compensate, and why does this moment of compensation last only briefly before you revert to anger again?" I tried to find a succinct answer to this question in the text, but couldn't really find it; the answer seemed to be distributed over several concepts and paragraphs.

5. The concept of literality was not really that clear to me (I have never heard this term before).

Best regards,

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:36:27 PMSubject: Looking for feedback on a blog post about ACT

Hi all, I've got a new piece on my blog about ACT that I would appreciate feedback on - you can find it here:http://storyandantistory.org/2011/07/the-rules-we-follow-for-who-we-are/Basically I'm looking to refine how I write about ACT, with an eye toward a wider audience at some point (not yet determined what the format might be, or when). It's tricky stuff & I'd appreciate any gut reactions you might have, pro or con. You can comment either on the blog itself (there is a Comments feature) or here, or else backchannel to me directly.thanks!Randy

[Guest guest]

Hi Helena - I tried to post a response earlier & for some reason it didn't show

up on the list, so I'm replying again just in case it got lost. Thanks for all

your comments - they are very useful & will help me revise later on.

-R.

>

>

>

> HI Randy,

>

>  

>

> A very interesting read!  I've read it carefully three times, and here are my

thoughts (and I feel a little dense in bringing up some of these things, as

though I should have " gotten it " ):

>

>  

>

> 1.  Many concepts are mentioned - ACT, self-conceptualization, literality,

how language works - but, at the end, I'm unclear how all these things are

related or interact.  There are so many words and examples to read through that

I was unable to see the overall thread, purpose or conclusion of the article.

>

>  

>

> 2.  This is confusing to me:   " seeing our own rules for what they are "

....   " as a form of self-forgiveness "

>

>  

>

> 3.  " We have broken a rule we are barely conscious of. "    I had to stop and

ask myself, " What rule was broken? "   That I made another person " bad " or that I

felt " bad " for doing so?

>

>  

>

> 4.  " What’s going on here? Why did criticizing your co-worker make you so

uncomfortable you felt you had to compensate, and why does this moment of

compensation last only briefly before you revert to anger again? "       I

tried to find a succinct answer to this question in the text, but couldn't

really find it; the answer seemed to be distributed over several concepts and

paragraphs.

>

>  

>

> 5.  The concept of literality was not really that clear to me (I have never

heard this term before).

>

>  

>

> Best regards,

>

> Helena

>

> Looking for feedback on a blog post about ACT

>

>  

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi all,

>

> I've got a new piece on my blog about ACT that I would appreciate feedback on

- you can find it here:

>

> http://storyandantistory.org/2011/07/the-rules-we-follow-for-who-we-are/

>

> Basically I'm looking to refine how I write about ACT, with an eye toward a

wider audience at some point (not yet determined what the format might be, or

when). It's tricky stuff & I'd appreciate any gut reactions you might have, pro

or con. You can comment either on the blog itself (there is a Comments feature)

or here, or else backchannel to me directly.

>

> thanks!

> Randy

>

[Guest guest]

Randy,

Just to be clear for others here who may want to help you with the feedback you

are asking for, can you elucidate a bit more:

From what you're saying to Bill and Helena, sounds like you don't want feed-back

on the content and rather speak to gut responses and to writing style, to form?

Is that correct?

Also, can you speak more specifically about your intentions here? Such as your

target audience? People who no nothing about Contextual Behavioral Science

Approach to Change or people who know a little bit or people who know a lot?

Specific populations with respect to age, issue area, level of education,

settings and so forth?

thanks!

terry

> >

> >

> >

> > HI Randy,

> >

> >  

> >

> > A very interesting read!  I've read it carefully three times, and here are

my thoughts (and I feel a little dense in bringing up some of these things, as

though I should have " gotten it " ):

> >

> >  

> >

> > 1.  Many concepts are mentioned - ACT, self-conceptualization, literality,

how language works - but, at the end, I'm unclear how all these things are

related or interact.  There are so many words and examples to read through that

I was unable to see the overall thread, purpose or conclusion of the article.

> >

> >  

> >

> > 2.  This is confusing to me:   " seeing our own rules for what they are "

....   " as a form of self-forgiveness "

> >

> >  

> >

> > 3.  " We have broken a rule we are barely conscious of. "    I had to stop

and ask myself, " What rule was broken? "   That I made another person " bad " or

that I felt " bad " for doing so?

> >

> >  

> >

> > 4.  " What’s going on here? Why did criticizing your co-worker make you so

uncomfortable you felt you had to compensate, and why does this moment of

compensation last only briefly before you revert to anger again? "       I

tried to find a succinct answer to this question in the text, but couldn't

really find it; the answer seemed to be distributed over several concepts and

paragraphs.

> >

> >  

> >

> > 5.  The concept of literality was not really that clear to me (I have never

heard this term before).

> >

> >  

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Helena

> >

> > Looking for feedback on a blog post about ACT

> >

> >  

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Hi all,

> >

> > I've got a new piece on my blog about ACT that I would appreciate feedback

on - you can find it here:

> >

> > http://storyandantistory.org/2011/07/the-rules-we-follow-for-who-we-are/

> >

> > Basically I'm looking to refine how I write about ACT, with an eye toward a

wider audience at some point (not yet determined what the format might be, or

when). It's tricky stuff & I'd appreciate any gut reactions you might have, pro

or con. You can comment either on the blog itself (there is a Comments feature)

or here, or else backchannel to me directly.

> >

> > thanks!

> > Randy

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Also, with respect to putting this in context more, wondering who Randy, the

author of this piece is to me, the reader? Are you speaking as someone well

versed with learning and practicing ACT, as an authority in ACT (read not

expert)? For purpose of educating and informing as to what ACT is? To get folks

interested in pursuing help with ACT therapists for themselves? To help as a

change agent yourself? To have them join this list? Or another group already

existing or you hope to form? Who reads your blog? What do you want to do with

it? I'm guessing a more formal article or chapter as you are an avid writer,

correct? Do tell! In other words, What is it you're hoping to instill in your

readers? What do you want to them to be left with as a writer?

Off the top of my head, I will tell you I glanced at the blog and read Bill's

response and a lot of it was fairly consistent with my initial reaction. As was

Helena's here. But if you give a clearer idea of these things, that might help

me help you.

< And also trying to avoid a critique of my feedback, sitting here feeling glad

Bill went first. LOL! >

thanks,

terry

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > HI Randy,

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > A very interesting read!  I've read it carefully three times, and here

are my thoughts (and I feel a little dense in bringing up some of these things,

as though I should have " gotten it " ):

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > 1.  Many concepts are mentioned - ACT, self-conceptualization,

literality, how language works - but, at the end, I'm unclear how all these

things are related or interact.  There are so many words and examples to read

through that I was unable to see the overall thread, purpose or conclusion of

the article.

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > 2.  This is confusing to me:   " seeing our own rules for what they are "

....   " as a form of self-forgiveness "

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > 3.  " We have broken a rule we are barely conscious of. "    I had to stop

and ask myself, " What rule was broken? "   That I made another person " bad " or

that I felt " bad " for doing so?

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > 4.  " What’s going on here? Why did criticizing your co-worker make you

so uncomfortable you felt you had to compensate, and why does this moment of

compensation last only briefly before you revert to anger again? "       I

tried to find a succinct answer to this question in the text, but couldn't

really find it; the answer seemed to be distributed over several concepts and

paragraphs.

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > 5.  The concept of literality was not really that clear to me (I have

never heard this term before).

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > >

> > > Helena

> > >

> > > Looking for feedback on a blog post about

ACT

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi all,

> > >

> > > I've got a new piece on my blog about ACT that I would appreciate feedback

on - you can find it here:

> > >

> > > http://storyandantistory.org/2011/07/the-rules-we-follow-for-who-we-are/

> > >

> > > Basically I'm looking to refine how I write about ACT, with an eye toward

a wider audience at some point (not yet determined what the format might be, or

when). It's tricky stuff & I'd appreciate any gut reactions you might have, pro

or con. You can comment either on the blog itself (there is a Comments feature)

or here, or else backchannel to me directly.

> > >

> > > thanks!

> > > Randy

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> Hi Terry!

> From what you're saying to Bill and Helena, sounds like you don't

> want feed-back on the content and rather speak to gut responses

> and to writing style, to form?

Feedback on content is good too.

Also, when I say " gut reaction " what I mean is, it's generally more

useful for a writer to get raw feedback about what the reader's

experience was, anchored to specific text, than to get either

non-specific comments or else advice on " how to fix it. "

In other words, a general comment such as " I liked it " or " I

didn't like it " is less useful than a comment such as " I understood

the first paragraph, but at I really got thrown by the second

paragraph. " Likewise a comment such as " Too many technical terms,

you should use a less technical vocabulary " is less useful than

a comment such as " I didn't get the term 'literality' where you

use it in paragraph X, and I found that this made me impatient

as I kept reading, because I wanted to know but didn't. "

> Also, can you speak more specifically about your intentions here?

> Such as your target audience? People who no nothing about

> Contextual Behavioral Science Approach to Change or people who

> know a little bit or people who know a lot? Specific populations

> with respect to age, issue area, level of education, settings and

> so forth?

I'm aiming at an audience of folks who enjoy reading, who are

interested in how they & other people tick, and who know anywhere

from nothing at all about ACT to a fair amount about ACT. The main

distinction is, they are more likely to be laypeople than experts.

Good questions - thanks!

R.

[Guest guest]

Terry,

> What do you want to them to be left with as a writer?

Good question. But rather than my answering, perhaps you can

tell me what kind of author rises up off the text for you as you

read - that will be very helpful.

-R.

[Guest guest]

Sure, more later when i have time but off the cuff (and you likely know this as

an avid writer), I find personal anecdotes (especially beginning with one) very

helpful in terms of engaging, drawing me into material like this. Noticed a lot

of " we this, we that " in your narrative and cumulative effect left me feeling a

bit removed from what you were saying.

Hope that helps a bit..

terry

>

> Terry,

>

> > What do you want to them to be left with as a writer?

>

> Good question. But rather than my answering, perhaps you can

> tell me what kind of author rises up off the text for you as you

> read - that will be very helpful.

>

> -R.

>

[Guest guest]

Yup, thanks.

- R.

> >

> > Terry,

> >

> > > What do you want to them to be left with as a writer?

> >

> > Good question. But rather than my answering, perhaps you can

> > tell me what kind of author rises up off the text for you as you

> > read - that will be very helpful.

> >

> > -R.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lou,

Thanks for reading the blog post. And you have asked an

interesting question that has made me think.

> ... what happens to that sense of self when the child grows up

> and realises that what the adults considered 'good' behaviour

> was actually abhorrent?

In fact there are all sorts of ways that children can be taught

things that are unhelpful or inappropriate, rather than helpful

and appropriate. I read an example of this recently in an ACT

research paper:

" Some learning environments are largely inconsistent and

sometimes actively invalidating, as when parents will say

things such as: 'No you're not hungry' when the child's stomach

rumbles, or 'No you're not really sad' when the child is crying

.... this can lead to a deficit in knowing how to name private

experience, and to a deficient sense of self, as the child

relies more on external stimuli than internal ones to control

her emotional behavior. "

Probably this does not match your experience precisely, but I

hope you get the idea that many different kinds of learning are

possible when we are kids. And of course " learning " does not

necessarily have a negative or a positive connotation - it

depends on the context.

As for being left-handed - alas I am not. Life might be so much

more interesting if I were! Or at any rate more complicated,

from what left-handers tell me.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

A bit about my experience that is coming up for me with this exchange. I truly

see myself here, just so you know I'm not pointing fingers or trying to play

gotcha. I am a bit surprised at the expectations here as to what good feedback

constitutes, not just for you, but what you see as what most writers want.

Feels a bit much, a bit like my familiar old friend, attachment to outcome.

Maybe this is my issue and not yours at all, but this has helped me tremendously

now to begin to ask: Why don't I allow myself more variety? Why not sit with

all suggestions more, hold them lightly, with curiosity? If I jump to " No, not

what i want to hear " straight of the gate, doesn't that kind of undermine desire

to get authentic responses, ones that may ultimately be quite helpful?

Gee, especially if I am the one who invites feedback. I mean, it's not like

someone is forcing us to follow the feed-back we get, not like we have to do x,

y, z as suggested. But what is the cost in not remaining open to all suggestions

initially? I think maybe i can see that i might not want to take advice

literally word for word or otherwise fuse with it, but no need to toss it out

the window either. And there's likely more there, more ideas and valuable

things to be discovered if I just let my " No " be, give it some breathing room,

let the " I don't like this kind of feedback! " just be there, without adding or

subtracting, without trying to control things.

Remembering now I posted pain a few weeks ago about an incident I had where I

didn't follow my instincts to help someone and it really showed up as a lot of

sadness and regret, but also a strong value I'd be suppressing. I remember

someone came in here and offered up specific suggestion. I felt glad to get a

response, but initially I noticed I also felt put off. Like " that's not what I

expected to hear, that doesn't resonate for me, that doesn't work for me, I'm

not being understood, that's too prescriptive, too bossy for me " . I had a lot

of opinions about what kind of feedback I should and shouldn't get and didn't

even realize it! I wasn't giving benefit of doubt, wasn't looking at the whole

picture, wasn't able to see too much good-- taking it all too literally, almost

as if i had to agree with the advice, like we had to be on same page. Like

somehow I'm not in charge, I can't ultimately choose what to keep and what to

toss out.

And that's how I've let my world get smaller and smaller, in this way. Just so

little room there for having varying responses simply breathe. I mean, I'm the

one who put it out there, for goodness sake. I'm here and your there, being

kind and caring enough to read my stuff, offer up ideas and suggestions and

instead of being grateful, I'm full of no thank you's. Because I think to be

accepting and grateful means same as agreeing with, signing on, liking it,

wanting it.

This may not be so for you at all Randy, so apologies if it feels I'm exploiting

this exchange for my issue.. I know this is probably not the feedback you were

looking for!

It just showed up here for me and I thought it might be helpful for anyone else

on this path of acceptance.

kind regards,

terry

(and will certainly be happy to give you more full response to your essay after

i read it thoroughly--that is, if you're not on overload from feedback

request!).

>

> > Hi Terry!

>

> > From what you're saying to Bill and Helena, sounds like you don't

> > want feed-back on the content and rather speak to gut responses

> > and to writing style, to form?

>

> Feedback on content is good too.

>

> Also, when I say " gut reaction " what I mean is, it's generally more

> useful for a writer to get raw feedback about what the reader's

> experience was, anchored to specific text, than to get either

> non-specific comments or else advice on " how to fix it. "

>

> In other words, a general comment such as " I liked it " or " I

> didn't like it " is less useful than a comment such as " I understood

> the first paragraph, but at I really got thrown by the second

> paragraph. " Likewise a comment such as " Too many technical terms,

> you should use a less technical vocabulary " is less useful than

> a comment such as " I didn't get the term 'literality' where you

> use it in paragraph X, and I found that this made me impatient

> as I kept reading, because I wanted to know but didn't. "

>

> > Also, can you speak more specifically about your intentions here?

> > Such as your target audience? People who no nothing about

> > Contextual Behavioral Science Approach to Change or people who

> > know a little bit or people who know a lot? Specific populations

> > with respect to age, issue area, level of education, settings and

> > so forth?

>

> I'm aiming at an audience of folks who enjoy reading, who are

> interested in how they & other people tick, and who know anywhere

> from nothing at all about ACT to a fair amount about ACT. The main

> distinction is, they are more likely to be laypeople than experts.

>

> Good questions - thanks!

>

> R.

>

[Guest guest]

Terry,

Thanks for your thoughts. In my case, I'm specifying the type of feedback that

would be useful for me based my experience as a writing teacher for 4+ years at

New York University, as well as on writing textbooks by Elbow, Carol Bly,

Hall, and other well-known instructors.

If you are curious, I'd recommend " Writing with Power " by Elbow in particular -

a great book for any writer who wants better feedback.

- Randy

> >

> > > Hi Terry!

> >

> > > From what you're saying to Bill and Helena, sounds like you don't

> > > want feed-back on the content and rather speak to gut responses

> > > and to writing style, to form?

> >

> > Feedback on content is good too.

> >

> > Also, when I say " gut reaction " what I mean is, it's generally more

> > useful for a writer to get raw feedback about what the reader's

> > experience was, anchored to specific text, than to get either

> > non-specific comments or else advice on " how to fix it. "

> >

> > In other words, a general comment such as " I liked it " or " I

> > didn't like it " is less useful than a comment such as " I understood

> > the first paragraph, but at I really got thrown by the second

> > paragraph. " Likewise a comment such as " Too many technical terms,

> > you should use a less technical vocabulary " is less useful than

> > a comment such as " I didn't get the term 'literality' where you

> > use it in paragraph X, and I found that this made me impatient

> > as I kept reading, because I wanted to know but didn't. "

> >

> > > Also, can you speak more specifically about your intentions here?

> > > Such as your target audience? People who no nothing about

> > > Contextual Behavioral Science Approach to Change or people who

> > > know a little bit or people who know a lot? Specific populations

> > > with respect to age, issue area, level of education, settings and

> > > so forth?

> >

> > I'm aiming at an audience of folks who enjoy reading, who are

> > interested in how they & other people tick, and who know anywhere

> > from nothing at all about ACT to a fair amount about ACT. The main

> > distinction is, they are more likely to be laypeople than experts.

> >

> > Good questions - thanks!

> >

> > R.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, yes, I'm very interested in this conversation as I love to write and

more importantly. am wanting to learn to write in a way that truly inspires and

helps others. I'm sure there are kinds of feedback that tend to be more helpful

than not..my concern is fusing with this.

I suppose you could say that adhering to a pre-determined formula that attempts

to predict the utility of what others will offer me as helpful or not is not

terribly attractive to me. I mean, we could argue for weeks and months about

that sort of thing.

And that feels off. Feels a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

Certainly vague commenting can't be as helpful as it takes on a cryptic

nature..but specific suggestions from the very audience you hope to speak to?

How does that hurt? From where I stand, that could only help. Even if you

decide to not take any of it in, you've learned so much as to where you're some

of your audience is.

So for me, it's all grist for the mill, I suppose. Well, it's usually not, but

that's what I'm opening up to now.

peace,

terry

> > >

> > > > Hi Terry!

> > >

> > > > From what you're saying to Bill and Helena, sounds like you don't

> > > > want feed-back on the content and rather speak to gut responses

> > > > and to writing style, to form?

> > >

> > > Feedback on content is good too.

> > >

> > > Also, when I say " gut reaction " what I mean is, it's generally more

> > > useful for a writer to get raw feedback about what the reader's

> > > experience was, anchored to specific text, than to get either

> > > non-specific comments or else advice on " how to fix it. "

> > >

> > > In other words, a general comment such as " I liked it " or " I

> > > didn't like it " is less useful than a comment such as " I understood

> > > the first paragraph, but at I really got thrown by the second

> > > paragraph. " Likewise a comment such as " Too many technical terms,

> > > you should use a less technical vocabulary " is less useful than

> > > a comment such as " I didn't get the term 'literality' where you

> > > use it in paragraph X, and I found that this made me impatient

> > > as I kept reading, because I wanted to know but didn't. "

> > >

> > > > Also, can you speak more specifically about your intentions here?

> > > > Such as your target audience? People who no nothing about

> > > > Contextual Behavioral Science Approach to Change or people who

> > > > know a little bit or people who know a lot? Specific populations

> > > > with respect to age, issue area, level of education, settings and

> > > > so forth?

> > >

> > > I'm aiming at an audience of folks who enjoy reading, who are

> > > interested in how they & other people tick, and who know anywhere

> > > from nothing at all about ACT to a fair amount about ACT. The main

> > > distinction is, they are more likely to be laypeople than experts.

> > >

> > > Good questions - thanks!

> > >

> > > R.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Terry,

You'll have to own all of this as your own personal reaction.

There's nothing wrong with it - it's totally valid - it's just that It's

got nothing to do with where I'm at, nor with the very long and

informed discussion among writing teachers & students about

what helps writers perfect their craft. There are decades worth

of discussions that you can join as a reader & student and

practitioner of writing if you are interested. The Elbow book

would be a start; and if you back-channel me I can provide you

with still more suggested reading. Or you could take a writing

workshop, and again i could suggest what to look for in a

workshop.

Writing is writing in the way that riding a bicycle is riding a

bicycle or crafting a really good surfboard is crafting a really

good surfboard. It's a craft discussion and not a psychological

discussion. Please do back-channel me if this is a topic you

are really interested in; I'd be glad to provide more info.

- Randy

> > > >

> > > > > Hi Terry!

> > > >

> > > > > From what you're saying to Bill and Helena, sounds like you don't

> > > > > want feed-back on the content and rather speak to gut responses

> > > > > and to writing style, to form?

> > > >

> > > > Feedback on content is good too.

> > > >

> > > > Also, when I say " gut reaction " what I mean is, it's generally more

> > > > useful for a writer to get raw feedback about what the reader's

> > > > experience was, anchored to specific text, than to get either

> > > > non-specific comments or else advice on " how to fix it. "

> > > >

> > > > In other words, a general comment such as " I liked it " or " I

> > > > didn't like it " is less useful than a comment such as " I understood

> > > > the first paragraph, but at I really got thrown by the second

> > > > paragraph. " Likewise a comment such as " Too many technical terms,

> > > > you should use a less technical vocabulary " is less useful than

> > > > a comment such as " I didn't get the term 'literality' where you

> > > > use it in paragraph X, and I found that this made me impatient

> > > > as I kept reading, because I wanted to know but didn't. "

> > > >

> > > > > Also, can you speak more specifically about your intentions here?

> > > > > Such as your target audience? People who no nothing about

> > > > > Contextual Behavioral Science Approach to Change or people who

> > > > > know a little bit or people who know a lot? Specific populations

> > > > > with respect to age, issue area, level of education, settings and

> > > > > so forth?

> > > >

> > > > I'm aiming at an audience of folks who enjoy reading, who are

> > > > interested in how they & other people tick, and who know anywhere

> > > > from nothing at all about ACT to a fair amount about ACT. The main

> > > > distinction is, they are more likely to be laypeople than experts.

> > > >

> > > > Good questions - thanks!

> > > >

> > > > R.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I can hear the impatience in your note here and I'm afraid I might be guilty of

giving feedback not unlike that which you're saying NO to with respect to the

writing itself. Truly thought it was abundantly clear observations were my own.

Thanks for the suggestions here. I'd point out you seem very happy to give

specific suggestion and not so equally eager to receive. But maybe that's just

what I'm getting with this medium of writing, which is limited and distorted.

Randy, this is not about right/wrong. At least I didn't mean it to be. As

always, we go back to what is working for us, as human beings, as writers. That

said, it would certainly sadden me if one of the valuable takeaways from decades

of literature re: what helps writers includes fusing with a rule that compels me

to precipitously edit out or otherwise silence potentially valuable feedback in

early, rough draft stages before even giving them half a chance. The sort of

adamant NO that insists x, y, z is not helpful-- now or ever -- is antithesis of

all my instincts as a creative writer and as a human being valuing opening up to

what life is teaching me in the present moment, willing to be surprised again

and again. For instance, the larger issue of what Bill broached in his response

seemed not only " valid " , but very important with respect to how I represent and

define ACT to others..certainly there are ways that are more accurate and full

than others. Goes to broader discussion as to how I see as my responsibility

and role as writer when disseminating information.

But maybe this too has absolutely no place or interest for you.

And if that is also true, I'm sorry to have so fully indulged my own experience

here.

Good luck with your writing, Randy!

best,

terry

> > > > >

> > > > > > Hi Terry!

> > > > >

> > > > > > From what you're saying to Bill and Helena, sounds like you don't

> > > > > > want feed-back on the content and rather speak to gut responses

> > > > > > and to writing style, to form?

> > > > >

> > > > > Feedback on content is good too.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also, when I say " gut reaction " what I mean is, it's generally more

> > > > > useful for a writer to get raw feedback about what the reader's

> > > > > experience was, anchored to specific text, than to get either

> > > > > non-specific comments or else advice on " how to fix it. "

> > > > >

> > > > > In other words, a general comment such as " I liked it " or " I

> > > > > didn't like it " is less useful than a comment such as " I understood

> > > > > the first paragraph, but at I really got thrown by the second

> > > > > paragraph. " Likewise a comment such as " Too many technical terms,

> > > > > you should use a less technical vocabulary " is less useful than

> > > > > a comment such as " I didn't get the term 'literality' where you

> > > > > use it in paragraph X, and I found that this made me impatient

> > > > > as I kept reading, because I wanted to know but didn't. "

> > > > >

> > > > > > Also, can you speak more specifically about your intentions here?

> > > > > > Such as your target audience? People who no nothing about

> > > > > > Contextual Behavioral Science Approach to Change or people who

> > > > > > know a little bit or people who know a lot? Specific populations

> > > > > > with respect to age, issue area, level of education, settings and

> > > > > > so forth?

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm aiming at an audience of folks who enjoy reading, who are

> > > > > interested in how they & other people tick, and who know anywhere

> > > > > from nothing at all about ACT to a fair amount about ACT. The main

> > > > > distinction is, they are more likely to be laypeople than experts.

> > > > >

> > > > > Good questions - thanks!

> > > > >

> > > > > R.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>