(I know this view presented may be a touchy subject for some [and may be misinterpreted], so I decided against posting this to the Listservs)
Hello,
There was a recent post/thread in the ACT/RFT Listservs that concerned the ability to entail “towards” from “away from” (and vice versa) when the terms are used as descriptions of behavior relative to “things” existing between and among other “things” (i.e., from a spatial perspective). From this spatial perspective, “towards” and “away from” can be seen to be fundamentally indistinct as the “existence” of one entails/assumes the “existence” of the other.
But what about from a functional perspective?
In my view, from a functional perspective, “towards” and “away from”, as descriptions of behavior relative to a stimulus, can also be seen to be fundamentally indistinct in that they both entail the same basic function: the desirable outcome/consequence/experience sought after (the presumptive reinforcement/reinforcer). Whether described as “towards” a stimulus (i.e., likely “positive” reinforcement) or “away from” a stimulus (likely negative reinforcement), (operant) behavior either way is assumed to be in pursuit of a desirable outcome/consequence/experience (reinforcement).
In other words, an organism that is described as moving “away from” some stimulus condition, from a functional perspective, can also be described as moving “towards” a desirable outcome/consequence/experience (i.e., they fundamentally seek to “feel” better). Likewise, an organism that is described as moving “toward” some stimulus condition can also be described as moving “away from” undesirable feelings/states of deprivation/wanting (i.e., they fundamentally seek to “feel” better). The desire to “feel better” (i.e., escape/avoid aversive stimuli; pursue/attain desirable stimuli), to me, represents the core feature of any (operant) behavior naturally seeking its desirable/functional outcome.
Why would this entailment matter in a functional account?\
Consider the case of an ACT-trained person who is working to move “towards” their identified values and happens upon a situation in which they must (ideally, willingly and with acceptance) endure/persevere through some momentarily highly aversive event in the service of those values. This person moving “towards” values is of course not simultaneously moving “away from” (escaping/avoiding) the momentarily aversive stimulus condition, but moving “towards” values is also not “other than” the fundamental pursuit of a desirable outcome/consequence/experience (i.e., seeking to “feel” better long term). The manifestation of “feeling better” in such a case can be seen as very different (short term vs. long term), but this (likely) element of functional outcomes can be seen as present either way.
A person pursues values in the trust/faith that doing so will ultimately lead to “better outcomes” (which is NOT “other than” feeling better than they currently do or usually do).
In other words, though it may not be helpful/functional to talk about/identify pursuing “feeling better” when discussing/training values-consistent actions with clients, that doesn’t mean that this (likely) element of functional actions is not a (important) part of the process. And, if it is, then it likely should be understood as such by those who seek more complete understandings of such things for useful purposes.
In my time with this (ACT) community, it has been made very clear to me that working “towards” values is NOT the pursuit/escape of feelings/emotions (e.g., “happiness”), but it is not often (if ever) pointed out that working “towards” values is also not “other than” this fundamental pursuit.
One can understand why this scientific community might want to steer clear of this topic. However, this information (if accurate) may be useful in attempting to formulate a more complete (contextual) understanding of the functional role of “values”… which may likely be useful in working towards improving effectiveness of intervention.
Thank you for reading!
Jesse