My comments,
Here are some
of my comments on “The Status of Rule-Governed Behavior as Pliance, Tracking
and Augmenting within Relational Frame Theory: Middle-Level Rather than
Technical Terms” by Harte, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2021). Strikingly, in
the abstract of the paper, the authors admit that “A recent systematic review
has highlighted that the terms pliance, tracking, and augmenting have rarely
been used as the basis for conducting systematic experimental-analytic research
since their conception in 1982, despite their theoretical centrality to the
study of rule-governed behavior and their presumed impact on psychological
suffering.” Please, pause and take a moment to acknowledge what is happening in
the competitive world of academia. Sadly, but also hilariously, for almost forty
years nothing has happened, despite the fact that multiple papers, like these, have
been published and studied by students of behaviorism.
There was a
time, I tried to get to talk with Steven Hayes, the founder of RFT, but he never
gave me a chance to tell him about Embodied Language (EL), as he was only interested
in promoting his theory. I acknowledge, I too have my own theory, but I was and
still am open to discuss my theory with anyone, who is willing to consider and
experiment with what it is like to actually listen to yourself while you speak
and, thus, to engage in EL. Like so many others – thirteen in a dozen – Steven
Hayes is a real coward, who wasn’t willing to admit, he is engaging in Disembodied
Language (DL), in which we do not listen to ourselves, but make others listen
to us.
I am not
going comment on the entire paper, as that would be a total waste of my time,
but I will only comment on the abstract, as that will give me the satisfaction
of being able to say: I told you so. I write my comment, because this paper
vindicates what I have been saying all along. Going back to the aforementioned dreadful
quote, there has been no “systematic experimental-analytic research since their
conception in 1982, despite their theoretical centrality to the study of rule-governed
behavior and their presumed impact on psychological suffering.” Lazy, phony,
arrogant academicians have been sitting on their hands, while collecting a big
pay-check from the institution that employed them. Obviously, they have done absolutely nothing
to reduce “the impact on psychological suffering”, as they say so themselves. When
we ask ourselves the inevitable question, why (???) “the terms pliance,
tracking, and augmenting have rarely been used as the basis for conducting
systematic experimental-analytic research since their conception in 1982,
despite their theoretical centrality to the study of rule-governed behavior???”,
we cannot escape the notion, that these terms, apparently, are not considered to
be very important. In spite of the hype they created, they continue to be
ignored.
Mendel, a modest
monk, who pioneered the study of genetics, by breading and cross-breeding peas,
formulated the Laws of Inheritance, which were published the journal the Natural History Society
of Brünn (1866). Unlike, Steven Hayes, he changed
the course of history. Although my work isn’t published in any scientific
paper, my conceptualization of DL and EL, is as valid as Mendel’s Laws of
Inheritance. Everyone who explores this distinction experiences an alleviation
of suffering. Moreover, with ongoing EL, they recognize their Language Enlightenment
(LE), which completely transforms their psychology.
Let’s now look into the rest of this
stupid abstract, as we are not going to bother to read this tedious,
meaningless, worthless paper. The authors seem to demand to be recognized, in spite
of the irrefutable fact, that their hair-splitting, contrived concepts haven’t created
interest at all. “Given
that some time has passed since the review article [excuse me, forty years is
quite a long time!], it may be useful to reflect again upon their place within
the literature on the experimental analysis of human behavior, and relational
frame theory in particular.” It is not right for them to force their ideas on
the reality. They say they are grounded in “the experimental analysis of human behavior”,
but in reality, they just only want to piggy-bag on the real experimental work that
was done by the behaviorist B.F. Skinner, as all they are actually interested
in, is in promoting their own “relational frame theory in particular.”
They ludicrously
fabricate this pseudo-scientific article, which “constitutes a “position piece”
rather than another formal systematic review.” Basically, we are just talking
about the personal opinion of some well-published hot-headed professors. “In
reviewing (informally) the literature since the systematic review, the recent
emergence of psychometric research involving these concepts could be seen as
reinforcing the original conclusions, in that researchers are recognizing that
pliance, tracking and augmenting may be of limited value in the experimental
analysis of human behavior.” In other words, they have now found, after years
of torturing students with this bullshit, that these over-hyped concepts are actually totally
bogus. They go on to say “Instead, the concept of rule-governed behavior
itself, as well as the sub-categories of pliance, tracking and augmenting,
should be considered middle-level terms, which lack the relative precision of
more technical terms within the literature on relational frame theory.” What
the does that mean? It means: “the concept of rule-governed behavior itself, as
well as the sub-categories of pliance, tracking and augmenting” are a figment of
the so-called researcher’s imagination.
I once had a
brief conversation with Steven Hayes, the pathetic guru-like leader of the RFT-movement.
Although, at that time, I was still eager to connect with him and hopeful that he
would be interested in my conceptualization of the DL-EL distinction, it was
almost instantly clear, he was too full of himself to have a genuine conversation with me. The
authors of this useless paper (C. Harte & D. Barnes-Holmes) are enthralled RFT apostles, who only care
about their pay-check and don’t give a rat’s-ass about the truth. I am glad to
have left academia and had fun commenting
on this dull abstract. My interest is in EL and LE. Anyone recovering from the RFT-cult,
would be greatly benefitted from reading my work.