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.