Re: Fwd: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] Self-as-context stuff from the professional list

[Guest guest]

thank you sooooooooooooo much for posting this dr. steven hayes:-). i can't begin to tell u how helpful it was. This is the sorta plain and simple way of explanation that i was looking for, coz often i do struggle a lot with undertsanding text, unless it is laid down in the most simplest way. this was just fabuuuuuuulous, and i am so glad u shared it with this list. so jazakallah khair again.wasalaam:-)-K Designs."" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.

That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND you have their

shoes." ~ a very pious intellectualTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: stevenchayes@...Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:44:17 -0700Subject: Fwd: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] Self-as-context stuff from the professional list

D J Moran posted an awesome post on the professional list that )coincidentally) was on the topic wewere discussing ... I asked him and he said it wouldbe cool to repost here- 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

When I was 25 years old, I told myself I’d go to Reno

someday and contribute to the ACT literature.

So here I am, 41 years old, in a casino hotel in Reno writing an email to our listserve. Not what I had originally planned, but I

wouldn’t have it any other way. ;-)I’m breaking this post into two parts. I think the first is relevant to the

listserve, and second part is just a “human interest story” germane to the

first part.Part 1.Over the last couple of years, I’ve been working at getting

the ACT processes across to people in organizations in order to influence

performance, safety, and leadership. The

real struggle was with making the “self-as-context” (SAC) domain relevant and

understandable in a group setting to people in industry… without sounding “too

out-there.” The SAC is a tough nut to

crack, even for ACT enthusiast mental health professionals. I recall once having a good laugh with a

really great ACT therapist when we were lampooning SAC, and wishing we could

just ditch the entire concept and move forward with the Pentaflex model. (Name withheld to protect the guilty.) I actually flip-flopped and really think SAC is crrrrritical to good ACT therapy...

To keep SAC in the ACTrainings I’ve been doing, I decided to

use what I call the “I am” exercise.

I’ve attached a pdf of the handout I use. It is ridiculously simple… it probably doesn’t

even deserve a name or an email attachment, but I figured I’d have to call it

something to talk about it. (There’s probably stuff out

there exactly like this exercise. I just

don’t know where I might have heard of it before.)The sheet has 10 numbered sentence stems, and they all say

“I am _______________.” (It’s kind of

like the Rotter Incomplete Sentence Test, but with far less imagination!)I invite you to print it out and do the exercise. Here’s the directions:Once everyone in the group has a sheet and pen, I say: “If

you’re willing to play along, I invite you to fill in the blanks. Just go ahead and write the words that come

to mind to describe yourself. There

aren’t any right or wrong answers, I won’t be collecting them, and I won’t ask

you to read what you wrote.”

Sometimes I continue: “To give you a sense of how this works, I might write: I

am a psychologist. I am giving

a workshop. I am six foot three inches. I am talking.” [N.B. I am alternating examples of self-as-content

and self-as-process without really lecturing on that stuff.]“Now go ahead and give it a try.”

Sometimes, in groups that seem to be having fun with the ACTraining, I’ll say:

“Now don’t copy off the guy next to you!”

;-)When it seems everyone is done, I say: “OK folks, now I’m

not doing any mind games here… I just want to try a little exercise. I’d like someone to give me a random number

from 1 to10.”“Seven!” someone may call out.“OK folks, just cross out what you wrote for number 7…” [groans, laughs]“Now let me ask you… are you still you? If that word is deleted, are you still

you? Now I get it… there are some fringe

words, like “alive” that you might have written… and well, boom, you’ve busted

the exercise… but that aside… in a

sense, are you still you if that description is deleted? Check it out… let’s do it again… and so it’s

not like I’m manipulating anything, someone else give me a number…”“Five” someone may call out.“OK, great. Cross out

what you wrote in number five. Now, with

that gone, are you still you? See, if I

wrote “six foot three,” you know I could get into a car crash, become a double

amputee, and them I’m five foot ten… right.

And I’m still me. And I can cross

out “psychologist,” too. I may perform

the duties of a psychologist, and be recognized by the State of Illinois as a

psychologist, but I could retire one day and not be a psychologist… and I’m

still me. And I am standing – but now…” (then I sit). - - - - “I’m still me.”“What if you crossed off EVERYTHING you wrote!? What remains?

“Nothing!” – someone usually says.“Nope… something still remains… what’s still on the paper?”Eventually: “What is still there is: “I am - period”

“I am. That’s the

whole statement. The whole

sentence. It’s simply “I am.” You are not what you describe yourself to

be. You aren’t limited by these

words. (If it were a workshop with psychologists, I’d talk about

“defining” and the root fin and finite, etc.)“You simply are. We are not the things we describe ourselves

to be. We can experience, simply

experience our life from a point of view… a unique point of view… we might say

that we are talking about our core self.”“Now, why this weird trippy thing is important: we can

couple this “I am” with all the stuff we learned about mindfulness [usually

covered by now in the workshop], about being in the here and now… and we can

say “I am here now…”And then I segue into values clarification. I believe a person is better off clarifying

values once they are unencumbered from self-as-content stuff. I think what we report to value can be

tainted by who we’ve been taught to say we are.

(Follow that?)

So what’s the point??: I think if you’re

doing SAC work in groups (heck, even individually), this 10 item “I am”

sentence stem exercise can experientially shed some light on the self-as-context, especially

as you peel away the layers of content and process by crossing out some of the

words. Play with it, and you might see

some use for it in your own work.Part 2.I did this exercise about 10 days ago with construction

workers. There was a woman in the back

of the class, new to the company, and totally decked out in tattoos and

piercings. She fit in as one of the 10%

of the workers I’ve had in my workshops who were just totally against the idea

of being taught safety by a psychologist.

(Really, despite what people might guess, I’d say a good 50% of the

front-line employees I’ve worked with are into the idea of ACTraining, 40% are

indifferent…)So this woman named Kendra is giving me the “screw you” vibe

the entire first half of the workshop.

After break, she comes back with her sweatshirt removed, and she has a

giant tattoo across her upper chest: “I AM”I see this tattoo and go right into the worksheet

exercise. At the end of the exercise (even though my

better angels told me not to), I said to her, “Does your tattoo on your chest

say anything else after it? I have a

feeling it doesn’t…”She replied: “No. It

just says “I am” period.I then tried to get her and the class to bug out on the coincidence

and how cool it was that she TATTOOED it on her body… but I was the only one

trippin…At the end, she bolted for the door. Gave me nothing but attitude the rest of the

day.That same night, I go to my brother-in-law’s birthday party. He works for the same company so all the

employees were there drinking beer and hanging out. And there was Kendra… who was introduced to

me as…MY NIECE!!!!She is a long-lost part of my wife’s family and my

relative! We talked for a while and she

said, essentially, “You know, that “I am” exercise isn’t all that “out

there.” I’m 22 years old, and had this

tat for a while. People can really dig

into the idea of having their own perspective and unique point of view.”…which was nice to hear.

I always wondered if the SAC work in ACT would “transfer” into my

nonclinical workshops. It turns out that

it can resonate with folks… The whole

day was an edifying experience!Thanks for letting me share that…

D.J.--Dr. J. MoranFounder & Senior Consultant

1415 Maple RoadJoliet, IL 60432(877) 9 - PICKSLYDE

dj@...http://www.pickslyde.com

D.J.--Dr. J. MoranFounder & Senior Consultant

1415 Maple RoadJoliet, IL 60432(877) 9 - PICKSLYDE

dj@...http://www.pickslyde.com

[Guest guest]

--- In ACT_for_the_Public, D.J. Moran wrote via :

>

> We can couple this " I am " with all the stuff we learned about

> mindfulness ... And then I segue into values clarification. I

> believe a person is better off clarifying values once they are

> unencumbered from self-as-content stuff. 

Some thoughts - speculative, trivial, and badly phrased thoughts,

but still the subject interests me so I will express them anyway:

1) I guess (very wildly) that an exercise like this probably works

deliciously in group settings - I can just imagine people in a

group that is going well feeding off each other's excitement & and

having a sense of connection w/each other as they make discoveries

and share them.

2) I also guess (just as wildly) that when people are working on

their lonesome, it can be harder to " get " self-as-context,

regardless of which exercise is being done. Some folks may get it

in a snap, some folks may wonder what the fuss is about. Some may

get it sometimes, not other times. Myself, I find self-as-context

hard to " get " and easy to " lose. " I have gotten and lost it, oh, a

half dozen times? Three times? Thirty times? I really don't know.

3) Maybe what helps explain #1 and #2 above is that what we " get "

(that is, what we learn) is not *actually* self-as-context - by

definition it is not a thing to be gotten. So that whatever it is

we *do* learn, it is not like a cup or a chair that we can all

more or less agree is " out there " in front of us as a cup or a

chair - instead it is invisible & heavily shaped by our learning

history, and heavily shaped also by our present context. And maybe

shaped too by our habitual degree of verbal entanglement, i.e. some

of us are more " in our head " in certain contexts than others.

And maybe being in a group adds physical/social cues (eye to eye

contact?) that enhance this particular learning situation? Which

makes me wonder - I've never done the " eyes on " exercise and I

wonder if it too wouldn't contribute in some way to learning an

aspect of self-as-context?

4) With regard to #3, we are fortunate that self-as-context

doesn't have to be a " been there, done that " exercise any more

than mindfulness is. We can revisit it as often as we like. Plus,

once our learning does start to take hold, it seems like it could

become an experience that we can have quite often in natural settings,

i.e. in " real life " - it can be come part of the wonder of living.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

>

> Would you mind pointing me toward the " eyes on " exercise please?

> Not sure I know that one.

Hi Lou,

" Eyes on " is a group exercise - e.g. an ACT trainer/facilitator

leads the group. But it can actually be done w/just two people,

neither of whom is a trainer, so long as they follow the

directions. It is presented as a willingness exercise but it

sounds to me like there are also overtones of self-as-context.

This is from an ACT book chapter - the chapter is called " ACT

In Group Format, " by Robyn Walser and Pistorello:

" In this exercise, individuals sit across each other,

knees-to-chair. They are asked to look each other in the eye,

without talking or communicating, while noticing what comes up and

letting each reaction be. Laughter, restlessness, avoidance of eye

contact, and staring the other person down are some of the initial

defensive responses to this exercise. The factiliator generally

orients the participants to various dimensions of responding in a

sentence or two to be followed by periods of silence (e.g. " Just

notice that these are human eyes you are looking at. " " See if you

can let go of any chatter you have about the other person and

allow yourself to be with that person. " ) This process continues

for 3 - 5 minutes. After the exercise, allow group members to

share their experiences with their partner and then open it up for

the group to process . . .

" Being emotionally present with another human being, while slently

looking at their eyes, can be quite powerful. When [people are]

encouraged to let defensive and fused behaviors go, [it can be] a

place of quiet appreciation for the common humanity shared by two

people. "

There is also a note in the book that this exercise may be easier

& in effect " safer " when done in a group than when just 2 people

do it. My guess this is because with just two people, if they do

not already have a secure relationship, the chatter about what 3

to 5 minutes of intense intimacy " means " might become a real head

trip. But that is just a guess.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Webcam, skype? Nah somehow I don't think it would be the same :-)

I saw a " new age " type book where the author used a similar practice as an

avenue for spiritual growth, and that was pretty much the whole practice and

focus of the book (can't remember the name of it sorry)

Kate

> >

> > Would you mind pointing me toward the " eyes on " exercise please?

> > Not sure I know that one.

>

> Hi Lou,

>

> " Eyes on " is a group exercise - e.g. an ACT trainer/facilitator

> leads the group. But it can actually be done w/just two people,

> neither of whom is a trainer, so long as they follow the

> directions. It is presented as a willingness exercise but it

> sounds to me like there are also overtones of self-as-context.

>

> This is from an ACT book chapter - the chapter is called " ACT

> In Group Format, " by Robyn Walser and Pistorello:

>

> " In this exercise, individuals sit across each other,

> knees-to-chair. They are asked to look each other in the eye,

> without talking or communicating, while noticing what comes up and

> letting each reaction be. Laughter, restlessness, avoidance of eye

> contact, and staring the other person down are some of the initial

> defensive responses to this exercise. The factiliator generally

> orients the participants to various dimensions of responding in a

> sentence or two to be followed by periods of silence (e.g. " Just

> notice that these are human eyes you are looking at. " " See if you

> can let go of any chatter you have about the other person and

> allow yourself to be with that person. " ) This process continues

> for 3 - 5 minutes. After the exercise, allow group members to

> share their experiences with their partner and then open it up for

> the group to process . . .

>

> " Being emotionally present with another human being, while slently

> looking at their eyes, can be quite powerful. When [people are]

> encouraged to let defensive and fused behaviors go, [it can be] a

> place of quiet appreciation for the common humanity shared by two

> people. "

>

> There is also a note in the book that this exercise may be easier

> & in effect " safer " when done in a group than when just 2 people

> do it. My guess this is because with just two people, if they do

> not already have a secure relationship, the chatter about what 3

> to 5 minutes of intense intimacy " means " might become a real head

> trip. But that is just a guess.

>

> - Randy

>