Hello everyone!
* Notes: In this post, I speak about “cognitive fusion” as a basic functional term that produces certain types/qualities of actions (which can be relatively desirable/helpful or undesirable/unhelpful). Please be aware that, in typical use by members of this community, the term may usually refer specifically only to the type of “cognitive fusion” that functions to produce undesirable/unhelpful qualities of actions as opposed to more positive, “life enhancing” experiences (e.g., absorption).
I use phrases like “it can be seen” and “in my view” throughout to emphasize this is a philosophical/conceptual/theoretical position (i.e., a view/outlook/perspective) with a (I believe) potentially useful purpose/utility.
It is the view/perspective/position that I attempt to make clear, not necessarily the definition, “meaning”, or application of specific words themselves… though words used for this purpose can/may often get in their own way (i.e., the context/our histories with them).
Still, I apologize for any confusion this may cause and would gladly welcome ideas for alternative phrasings if you have any.
Lastly, I want to thank Dr. Hank Robb for pointing out that a basic functional definition of “cognitive fusion” may essentially be seen as “relational framing” itself. It was largely this insight, which I hadn’t clearly seen/connected before he pointed it out, that led to this current post/perspective.
…
In my view / the way I have come to see it (currently)…
“Cognitive fusion”, from a basic functional perspective (BFP), can be seen/described as our interaction with thoughts/cognitions (i.e., contents of thoughts/cognitions) that function to alter the relative probability of certain types/qualities of actions/behaviors/thoughts (e.g., relatively values based/helpful, non-values based/unhelpful, or neither values based/helpful nor non-values based/unhelpful [neutral]).
“Attachment”, in contrast to fusion, can be seen as more closely related to the actual feelings/desire/pull, or relative lack thereof, that arise in relation to our interactions with stimuli/thoughts/cognitions.
...
In other words, from an RFT perspective, “cognitive fusion” (BFP) can be seen as the actual process of “relational framing”…
… while “attachment” can be seen as more specific to the “transformation of stimulus function” property of this framing/relating/fusing.
...
“Cognitively fusing” (BFP) with thoughts/cognitions means interacting with these stimuli through different ways of relating/comparing/analyzing/evaluating/relationally framing. These interactions between and among these stimuli naturally produce functions, one of which is to produce/create feelings of desire/pull (i.e., attachment) for us (to act/think/behave) in certain ways/directions. This “pull/desire” functions to increase/decrease the relative probability of certain types of outcomes (i.e., qualities of action) in the moment.
Together, “cognitive defusion” (BFP), along with its property of “attachment”, function (in the moment) to increase/decrease the relative probability of certain types/qualities of actions/thoughts/being.
...
Why would/does any of this information matter?
Because, the way I see it, this information/knowledge may help provide a clearer picture/understanding of the 4-term contingency with regards to internal stimuli/world/environment (i.e., private events).
For example, if we are primarily interested in “cognitive fusion” (and “attachment”) because of their functional properties in the moment (i.e., their effect of the types/qualities of behaviors produced), then this means we are mostly interested in them for their role, in the moment, as “antecedent variables”.
“Cognitive Fusion” (BFP), which encompasses the words/symbols used in relating/evaluating/comparing/analyzing/categorizing/decision making, the relating evaluating/comparing/analyzing/categorizing/decision making itself, and conclusions drawn/decisions made from such relating/framing, can be seen as the (internal) discriminative stimuli/content (i.e., stimulus conditions) that occasion/function to increase/decrease the relative probability of certain types/qualities of action (behavior) in the moment.
In contrast, “Attachment” (i.e., the transformation of stimulus function property of relational framing), as more specific to the desires/feelings that function to “pull” us in certain ways/directions (i.e., to engage in certain types/qualities of actions), can be seen as functioning/operating as the motivating operation (MO) in the moment.
…
The way I see it, “Cognitive defusion” has a function as well. Let’s consider when, how, and for what purpose we use the functional tool of cognitive defusion.
When? We use this tool when the current content of thoughts/cognitions/feelings are pulling us in certain undesirable directions (i.e., unhelpful/away from values).
How? We “cognitively fuse” (BFP) with the contents of other/alternative thoughts/cognitions. For example, “I am not my thoughts/I am thinking” “I am not my feelings/I am feeling”.
Why? To decrease the probability of certain undesirable qualities of action/being. “Cognitive defusion”, as a functional tool, would also likely be performed in the service of a value, which means it is likely done in the service of improving/increasing the probability of (at minimum) long term desirable/beneficial outcomes (and not “just” decreasing the probability of undesirable actions).
Therefore, in my current view/understanding, “cognitive defusion”, as a functional tool in the service of chosen value/s, can indeed be seen/conceived as a “helpful fusion” (BFP; ideally; if functioning as intended)… as would “fusing” (BFP) with (specific) values-based content/s of thoughts/cognitions if they function (as intended) to produce behaviors with relatively better/beneficial long-term effects.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. As always, any feedback/views/dialogue is welcome and appreciated.
Jesse