Re: Re: A Psychologist and a Monk: Steve and the Venerable Lobsang Nyingpo

[Guest guest]

I liked that "heckler." He made some good points and I wish the environment would have been such that a discussion could have ensued. It was impolite of him, to be sure, to jump is so emphatically and intensely, but whenever anyone can make me think, I tend to overlook manners a bit. I was a bit disappointed that the monk was not able to (or chose not to) address his points; it was probably not the forum for that or perhaps he was uncomfortable with the guy (but, as a monk, he would know how to deal with that, not?). When the guy said that (paraphrasing here) ... yes, suffering is part of my experience and I don't find it necessary to not have it - I thought that was a good point and quite ACT-like.

I'm wondering how Steve reacted to that guy and, more particularly, to what he said. Just curious ...

Terry, did you feel compassion for "the heckler" or just that "he shouldn't be so challenging, disrespectful, provocative, opinionated and hostile" in this situation? If you can be compassionate with yourself when you do something you deem inappropriate, and would like others to feel compassion for you as well, how much would it take to actually feel compassion for this man, too? I leave it out there as a question for consideration, for myself as well as you - and NOT as a criticism.

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:08:21 PMSubject: Re: A Psychologist and a Monk: Steve and the Venerable Lobsang Nyingpo

What really helps me to be more compassionate and empathic is noticing people like that guy who jumped right in and challenged both of them. He sounded very hostile to me. Heckler, you know? He sounded dis-respectful, stirring up the pot, provocative, blurting out this and that. Look at me, listen to me. And then at the end he seemed to catch himself a bit, qualified his remarks and said now he'd shut up. It was like he just had to say his opinion, and it had to be right then and there, and all I heard was a lot of "you're both wrong". And it's not that I don't appreciate differences of opinion. But there is a time and place for debate. And there is also a way to express this passion, the tone and the words we choose. Steve and the Monk come to this place, willing to take time to speak before others and offer their experience, expertise, wisdom to help others, spark interest. And they're trusting enough to let people just jump in with questions, keeping it casual. And this guy just dumps all over them.And I could relate to all of that, including catching myself be mindless, slipping off my values, tracking a lot of you know what around. And then there's that conversation to sit with (embarrassment, regret.. oh, wow! maybe I'm really as bad as I thought). And the tragic thing is I'm there because I am really interested in this topic, I'm wanting to learn, connect like everyone else. I have pain too. So I really got what that would feel like for all of them--the guy, Steve, the Monk and all the students. And it's just not the kind of stuff I want to put out there. That's why the acceptance, the yes to backing up, slowing down to own my own experience first is so very important for me now. > >> > Randy, you said 'Where my skepticism would arise is with the suggestion > > that this natural property of fully developed language automatically leads > > to our being able to overcome contention & division & see other persons > > & groups as being "like me/us."' > > > Would it not be more accurate to say that "this natural property of > > fully developed language is necessary to lead to our being able to > > overcome contention..." rather than "automatically leads to our being > > able..." That would take care of your skepticism with this statement, > > would it not? > > Not entirely, no. "Automatically" is poor phrasing on my part, and> your phrasing is better. But Steve leans on this notion of what are> called "deictic" relations pretty heavily in the presentation. And by > coincidence (or not) there is actually some discussion going on, > over on the professional list, about exercises that bridge the gap > between what pretty much all of us learn to do to be functional> human beings, on the one hand, and the extension of that form of> relating to increasingly compassionate & empathetic awareness> of other persons & other groups. > > The interesting thing about deictic relations & about what is called> "theory of mind" is that although we start learning these relations> when we are perhaps 5 years old, it takes many, many years to> learn the nuances. There are studies in which progressively more> difficult "thought experiments" are presented to different age> groups in which the experiment asks you to put yourself into> someone else's shoes & see things from their POV. These > experiments show that the nuances keep developing well into> adulthood & do not stop at age 8 or age 13 or what have you. > > So I can guess from that (but it is just a guess) that extending> all this to other persons & groups and further developing compassion> is really the same process as we experience in routine socialization . . . > but taken much further than routine socialization normally calls for.> > (Hope this makes some sense!)> > - R.>

[Guest guest]

I personally would not say that naturalism is the belief that ONLY natural laws operate --that seems dogmatic to me. My assumption would more humble: science studies natural laws. Whatever else is going on in the universe we

will need to learn about in other ways.One of my first graduate students was a Methodist minister ( Steele).He chuckled at the idea of a conflict between natural science and theology. " After all " he said. " Religion is supernatural "

So no, we don't put try to God under a microscope. Most religionsactually warn against that and focus on the centrality of a leap of faith.(the story of doubting etc in the Christian tradition;Araham in the old Testament; I don't know the Muslim scriptures

enough to know if there are similar stories there)I know there was more in this thread and a long post by Randy but I've not read it yet so until later ....- 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-mind

Huffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phdIf 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 (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.comIf you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your own values.

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

 

I like your quibbles! I'm sure Steve appreciates them too... Openness and free discussion is a core value in ACBS.

I write this very much for myself - to try and take one more small step forward. I would love to get your or other's comments!

ACT and RFT also has at it's foundation a naturalist view of reality: from Wikipedia: 

Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that the natural universe is a closed system and that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that either nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically.

I interpret that to mean that RFT and ACT have as their aim to explain how different mental states, such as empathy can arise. The ability to take a different perspective from I-here-now, seems to be a core component to be able to experience empathy or to get an idea of what's going on in other people's minds.

I have a spiritual view of things. I personally can't see how it would necessarily interfere with naturalism. What I mean is - I believe (this is not something that can be proved or disproved in the naturalistic tradition) that we already have an ability to be empathic when we're born - that is independent of having a brain. My belief is that that ability is not located in the brain, but that it's expressed in the brain as the ability to take different perspectives. In fact this ability is dormant in the soul, but is awakened by training perspective taking. 

On a side-note I can certainly see that ability for empathy in animals - but I can't say much more than that.

BestHenrik

In watching the videos, I found myself thinking more about the gaps inthe presentation than about anything else. Of there there is nothingwrong about such gaps occuring - in a Q & A setting like this, it's

unavoidable. But still it was interesting to see where my thoughtsabout these gaps led me.In particular, I found myself thinking that if I were new to ACT, Iwould have some skepticism about the argument that by itself, human

language almost axiomatically ensures the development of empathy & compassion.The " pro " side of the argument seems easy to grasp. Even withouthaving done any such experiments myself, I am willing to trust that

work in the lab shows that children with autism can be taught " I/you " verbal relations that previously they lacked. And I am fully willingto believe that learning such verbal relations can help these children

develop a richer repertoire of social experiences & social behaviors -including empathy for others, etc.Yet on the " con " side, I have two points of confusion & possibleobjection. I'll call these Quibble A and Quibble B. Quibble A is

theoretical & perhaps even trivial, but Quibble B seems to me to beimportant in understanding ACT.Let me get Quibble A out of the way first. Basically, my quibble hereis that I am not willing to define all possible behaviors that might

be labelled " empathy and compassion " in such a way that it is only " I/you " verbal relating that makes these behaviors possible. To thecontrary, I would argue that many social species of animals (wolves,

pigs, dogs, chimps, elephants, and apparently even mice) demonstratebehaviors that look an awful lot to us like the beginnings of empathyand possibly even compassion. There seems to be sufficient non-RFTresearch on this score for me as a layperson to trust that it it is

not all anthropomorphic fantasy on the part of gullible pet-owners,etc.In other words, yes, the human ability to speculate about theconsciousness of other members of our species far exceeds such ability

in any other animal species we can name - but such verbal behavior,like many other kinds of verbal behavior, seems to be scaffoldingbuilt upon existing non-verbal abilities shared by both humans andanimals. And yet at the same time, it is interesting that this

" scaffolding " of verbal relations seems to be quite necessary forhuman children to demonstrate what we consider empathy, vs. whateverempathetic behaviors we may believe we see in dogs, chimps, etc.Obviously we are different in this regard.

And now for Quibble B, which I think really does matter, if onlybecause it helps point to where the problem lies with what we learnabout language in the course of normal human socialization, vs. whatwe might wish to learn about language to address problems such as

suffering - both our own suffering, & the suffering of others.Put simply, if I were watching this video & knew nothing else aboutACT, I think I might be skeptical of the suggestion by Steve that " I/you " verbal relating is really the foundation of empathy &

compassion in humans. I think I would grasp that empathy is notpossible without a recognition that " you are like me in that you lookout from your eyes the way I look out from mine, etc. " Here we areback with what children must learn before their behavior can include

what we call empathy. Where my skepticism would arise is with thesuggestion that this natural property of fully developed languageautomatically leads to our being able to overcome contention & division & see other persons & groups as being " like me/us. " Indeed,

the evidence would seem all to the contrary - that we can have thisbasic " I/you " relating skill, and yet somehow demonstrate a lack ofcompassion, empathy, etc. toward other persons & groups. Aslanguage-using beings, we seem better much of the time at stereotyping

& disconnection than we do at empathy & connection.Now, Steve did seem to say in his remarks that it is not so simple as " I have I/you verbal relations, therefore everything is groovy. " At

one point he said something to the effect that getting outside of aproblem-solving, evaluative frame of mind is quite difficult & requires the acquisition of specific skills. So I think if he had hada little more time in the presentation, he would have elaborated on

the gap here between a basic verbal ability & the more elaborateskills that seem needed to leverage " self as context " or what have youinto " you really ARE like me, aren't you? " at a more elaborate level.

These thoughts on my part are not meant as criticisms, onlyobservations on the part of someone who is learning very slowly aboutACT and RFT beyond the boilerplate statements in the books and beyondmy own limited experience. Quibble B is especially difficult for me to

make clear to myself or to other people in a compact and persuasiveway. It seems very near the heart of the struggle with language.- Randy