Search This Blog

Showing posts with label relational frame theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relational frame theory. Show all posts

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Plankton, Crabbie Patties, and Relational Frame Theory

The goal for philosophers as well as chefs since mankind first lifted a pen or spoon for that matter is the meaning to life. Since our busy lives don't give us much time to ponder, we prefer short little recipes that neatly sum up the immutable laws of living. God's ten commandments sufficed at first, but modern man needs more, a secret formula or winning recipe that when followed gives you a leg up on all those other folks in the rat race, provides motivation and a feel good experience, and can be done on the cheap. There are lots of recipes in psychology, from Covey's seven habits to Dr. Phil's nine life laws that presume to get you on the winning track to business success, motivation, or even a place in heaven. That they don't quite succeed in doing this for us is testimony not only to the fact that such formulae are crap, but that people are a whole lot more ornery than our best philosophy would have.

Which brings me to the most elusive formula of all: the recipe of the crabbie pattie. As we all know, or at least those who have to watch Saturday morning cartoons with a young child, the crabbie pattie recipe is known only to Spongebob Squarepants and Mr. Crabs, the latter proprietor of the 'Crusty Crab', a sort of Wendy's of the deep. Now, as the Crabbie patty is the source of all culinary goodness, there are nefarious sorts, well one mainly, who wants this secret to reach ultimate power and 1 billion served. The evil doer is near microscopic in size (to match his creativity and wit), but has outsized ambitions to steal the recipe if he cannot create a similar one for his own restaurant: the 'Chum Bucket' (with not quite one served). As we all know, he never succeeds, as he invariably does himself in by falling on his own sword, or rather evil contraptions, and gets blown to bits each episode.



Dr. Hayes:
Green Little Guy Posted by Hello

Unlike food recipes, psychology recipes are gladly shared with others, providing you acknowledge its source and have a royalty check in hand. Secondly, psychologists have an often inordinate faith in the formulae they come up with, even if the resulting concoction has no more appeal than a bucket of chum. I found this out in correspondence with a certain Dr. Steven Hayes, a psychology professor who has his own secret sauce, which he calls Relational Frame Theory, a concept that completely baffles me. As a philosopher myself with more holes in my head than a certain yellow sponge, I sent him for review my own secret recipe Itty-Bitty Self Help Book.

To make matters simpler, he responded with his own formula, which I also can't understand, but no matter. It's with this formula below that he will take



Dr. Hayes' Crabbie Pattie Recipe Posted by Hello


by storm the psychological world. So be prepared, as I will surely be, for another surefire recipe that will tickle and satisfy our palates, like a bucket of chum.


Sunday, December 05, 2004

Relational Frame Theory: An Idiots Guide



A review of:


Relational Frame Theory: An Idiot's Guide to Ad-Hoc Accounting of Human Language and Day Dreaming.

By Steven C. Haze, Dimwit Barnes-Noble, and Steppon Roach (eds.) Published by Dordrek: Kluless Academic/Plentydum Publishers, 2006, 22883 pages


Reviewed by Anton Mezmer, Professor of Bad Psychology at the Academy of Lagado


Relational Frame Theory (RFT), an ambitious theory that tries to explain human language and cognition in incomprehensible terms, is laid out in painful detail in Relational Frame Theory: An Idiot's Ad-hoc account of Human Language and Daydreaming. This theory originally stems from a body of literature called stimulus equivocation. Formally defined by Sid and Tailgate (1982), stimulus equivocation is the heirarchical and omni-directional relationship between stimuli that allows for those stimuli to be interchangeable with one another. In other words, if a person is taught that "false" is equal to "true", then that person should also be able to believe anything he is told. This is called naivete. In addition, if that same person is taught that "up" equals "down", then that person should also be able to say that "RFT" equals the truth. This is called fundamentalism. These two properties, naivete and fundamentalism, in addition to non-reflection (e.g. square equals hypoteneuse") are the three properties that must be obtained in order to say that a person has demonstrated stimulus equivocation. This behavioral phenomenon has been the focus of an extensive body of literature in behavioral psychology for about two hundred years. The attention to this phenomenon is due to the ability of behavioral psychologists to show ad hoc relationships based on only one or two relations between abstract stimuli. This phenomenon is thought by behavioral psychologists to be a way in which to explain complex behaivor that could not be explained by any other explanation known to man. The authors ot this book, however, have taken up the research in stimulus equivocation and greatly expanded upon its explanatory capabilities of ad hoc behavior in humans. They have developed RFT, a theory that the authors believe has the capability to explain human language and cognition in terms of inexplicable cosmic and universal law.



An Example of a Relational Frame, or how one word equivocally leads to another


SUMMARY VERDICT

The book Relational Frame Theory: An Idiot's Guide to an Ad Hoc Account of Human Language and Daydreaming describes a brave new world that attempts to explain human language and daydreaming, as well as other psychological phenomena in a neo-lithic framework. The theory is impossibly complex, but described in agonizing detail. The authors seem to have left no stone, rock, meadow muffin, or shred of common sense unturned in their quest for a theory that is not ashamed to tackle any topic within the domain of human and vegetative mental life. While there are some questions that are left unanswered along the way, overall this is an amazing book that should appeal to anyone interested in language development and the pervasiveness of gullibility in accepting new and silly theories of human cognition.


References:

High, N. and Lowe, C. F. (2000) Testing for symmetry in the conditional discrimination of language trained gerbils. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Meaningless Behavior, 71, 5-29

Schlockman, R. J. and Fantastack, I. M. (1992) A California sea babe (pamus anderson) is capable of forming equivocation in relationships. On the Psychological Record, Book 1, Verses 2-7, 1920-2120

Sid, L. and Tailgate, W. (1902) Conditional discriminations vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm in Double Jeopardy. Journal of Game Show Behavior, Door no. 2, 1022-1233

Skinflint, B. F. (1927) Verbose Behavior. New York: Apple-Century-Crafts.

Wulfart, E. and Haze, S. C. (1066) The Transfer of conditional sequencing through bus tokens. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Mass Transit, 123: 324-325


Reviewers address:

Anton Mezmer
1 Brodbinag Hall
Department of Bad Psychology
Academy of Lagado
Winnyhym City, Lilliput, 62242
USA

email: swift@lagado.edu