ACT Book Summary: Pages 92 - 98

Drawing out the system-developing the idea with the client that the process of trying to solve the problem-verbalized as actions taken by the mind or as "language", creates a logical trap that if directly described presents its own paradox of being linear, literal and analytical-the very process we are attempting to discredit. A less direct approach: What do you want? Outcome goals: Love others, have children, be content...Process goals: A technique (I think) that leads to outcomes. Example-Outcome goal: living well, Process goal: changing bad feelings. Linking these two by a technique such as drinking is an unworkable system. I'm confused about this. "Process" seems dynamic while "Outcome" seems static. Aren't "drinking" and "changing bad feelings" both processes? In other words, isn't "changing bad feelings" a strategy while drinking is a tactic (subset)? Anyway then-What has the client tried? This is where you identify with the client and follow along with his historic plan of solving his problems, clarifying with examples the process of attempts, and agreeing on their relative success of lack thereof(there should be lack thereof or the person wouldn't be here, right?). How has it worked? Using the "mind" metaphor to reify the process of producing inflexible and unworkable verbal rules that persist as technique in spite of experiential feedback that they aren't working. Also pointing out the false solution of "trying harder" when confronted with this reality. This (1) focuses on verbal understanding and (2) helps client look at mental reactions rather than through them. The essence of this section is creating the dichotomy of what your mind tells you versus what experience is telling you.