Talk:Relational frame theory

message: I added this because the second (main) paragraph of this section asserts some very biased opinions as fact, but I don't have enough expertise in this subject to separate the worthwhile content out of this paragraph and fix the problem. 24.21.193.138 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-section for Application 

message: As an interested reader and Wikipedia fan, but not an RFT expert, I have a suggestion to anyone coming here to edit this page: I think a high-level focus of revision should be on making sure that non-technical readers can grasp more of what is being talked about. This means doing more than just tweaking here and there, although of course tweaking is also welcome. 
To take just a single example, the article as currently written (2/7/12) opens by talking about "language," but does not clarify what is meant by this term. And the first use of the term is linked to Wikipedia's topic for Language, which leads off by saying the following: 
:Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. The scientific study of language in any of its senses is called linguistics.
The problem is, in the context of RFT, this is more confusing than helpful - it will tend to orient the lay reader toward conventional grooves, e.g. that RFT is concerned with language as a system of labels for "real" objects, etc. It's true that the Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche book on RFT deliberately uses the term "language" early on "to orient the authors and readers toward a particular domain within the study of psychology" (p. 45). However, I think in this Wikipedia article must be careful about adopting a similar strategy. The RFT book was written for persons at least somewhat familiar with behavior analysis already, whereas many persons coming to Wikipedia may lack a BA background. It is just too easy for such readers to misconstrue "language" in all sorts of ways if the term is left hanging for very long. So it needs a pretty quick gloss, or some other strategy that can help the intelligent lay reader. 
Likewise, even "verbal behavior" is not currently defined in a way that lay people can grasp. The link out to the article on Skinner's Verbal Behavior is useful for persons familiar with Skinner's work, but not so useful for laypersons. For example, it is not made sufficiently clear in the present article that Skinner's concern arose not because human beings talk, but because human beings think, and thinking at a certain point in the history of behaviorism was rejected as unfit for study. So even the term "language" from a lay point of view is much more concerned with "thinking." And i would suggest that "thinking" is a better term here than "cognition" because "cognition" is very abstract sounding to a lay reader, and at the same time just as fuzzy within the overall field of psychology as "language." 
I hope these comments are helpful - I am not technically proficient enough with RFT to attempt a reworking of the sort I am describing, but I think it would be helpful. Whole Sight (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too much "in code" for behavior analysis geeks - needs to be "translated" a bit more for the non-technical reader 

message: On another point, I would ask that if you edit the page, please create a user name and don't just edit by IP address! That is fairly confusing to anyone who wants to have a dialog on edits on this talk page. Creating a user name is easy to do and is good practice for any number of reasons. Thanks! Whole Sight (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please adopt a Wikipedia user name before editing - don't just edit by IP address 

message: I have separated out the material about RFT's application to Autism Spectrum Disorder so that it now falls correctly under a heading of its own, rather than being misplaced under the heading for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. 
Likewise I have added a heading for the application of RFT to "evolution science." However if anyone has specific cites, please add! I have inserted web links to two relevant pages, one at Binghamton University, the other at the ACBS web site, but cites of papers, presentations, etc. would be very helpful here to show further reliability.  Whole Sight (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings added under "Applications" for autism, evolution science; more cites needed "evolution science" in particular 

message: Many of the above comments are very old, some nearly a decade. I propose to clear them up over the coming while and outline a clearer plan for the editing of the page, unless there are any objections. Ianhussey (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page refresh - October 2016 

message: The article does not seem to meaningfully address, or reference, any critical reviews by other researchers (e.g. Burgos 2003).  Perhaps for this reason, the article also does not discuss, or reference, Hayes and Barnes-Holmes' 2003 response to such challenges.  Therefore, among other things, I think the article would do well to specifically describe and reference one or more challenges to the theory as well as Hayes and Barns-Holmes' 2003 response. It seems to me that not referencing counter-arguments when they actually exist, could make an article appear biased whether or not that was the intention of its contributors.
Additional sources for consideration:
* Burgos, José E. (2003). "Laudable Goals, Interesting Experiments, Unintelligible Theorizing". Behavior and Philosophy. 31: 19–45. 
* Dillard, J.P., Solomon, D.H., & Samp, J.A. (1996). "Framing Social Reality: The Relevance of Relational Judgements". Communication Research, 23, 6, pp. 703-723. .
* Galizio, M. (2004). "Relational Frames: Where Do They Come From? A Comment on Barnes-Holmes and Hayes (2003)". The Behavior Analyst, 27, pp. 107-112. . .
* Hayes, Steven C.; Barnes-Holmes, Dermot; Roche, Bryan (2003-04). "Behavior Analysis, Relational Frame Theory, and the Challenge of Human Language and Cognition: A Reply to the Commentaries on Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition". The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. 19 (1): 39–54. . ISSN 0889-9401.
* Hughes, S. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). "Associative Concept Learning, Stimulus Equivalence, and Relational Frame Theory: Working out the Similarities and Differences Between Human and Nonhuman Behavior". Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, pp. 156-160. 
* Ingvarsson, E.T. & Morris, E.K. (2004). "Post-Skinnerian, Post-Skinner, or Neo-Skinnerian? Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche's Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition". The Psychological Record, 54, 497-504. 
Dougok (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential appearance of unintended bias