Posted by pseudoname on May 31, 2006, at 12:50:20
In reply to Re: What I think of ACT, posted by pedrito on May 31, 2006, at 11:49:11
> Wow, I have heard the same from "badhaircut" who frequents PB and the yahoo ACT board.
badhaircut = me. (Long boring story on the name-change.)
I owe you an email. I got one from you shortly before I left for Toronto to meet Dr Bob & 7 other Babblers at the pdoc convention.
Apologies. :-)
> if it takes extreme grandiosity to get ACT in front of more sufferers then so be it
I wish ACT's revolutionary core ideas were more popular — or at least more widely considered. This is for selfish reasons. I think the (few) existing weaknesses and circularities and white lies that exist in ACT could be vastly improved and ACT could be made (even?) more effective after some broad-based, supportive-but-skeptical criticism and development.
If I go back to grad school, it will be to participate in such an effort. If.
ACT's ideas are so easily MIS-understood. Over the weekend I drove 80 miles to a university library to get 4 journal articles comparing ACT and REBT, including one by Hayes and one by Ellis. Ellis has enthusiastically endorsed ACT, but it was clear from his article that he just doesn't get it! His "acceptance" is not mindful; his "context" is just the physical environment.
Pete, I think you (jokingly) asked me if I thought Hayes had become a monster. I don't think that at all. I think he's pretty typical for very ambitious academics in highly competitive, non-unified fields like clinical psychology. Beck, Ellis, Burns, Dryden (as you've said), etc, etc, etc… they're all like that. The stories I've heard about Bruno Bettelheim make Hayes look like a milquetoast.
Still, I'd be afraid to meet Hayes.
Nice chattin’! Now, I go outside…
poster:pseudoname
thread:492810
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/books/20051228/msgs/651036.html