I am currently adopting/practicing a new therapeutic model with my counseling clients. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a mindfulness-based model that is based on relational frame theory (RFT) which is based on the philosophy of functional contextualism. While this assumes a mode of mind within humans, I “think” there could be a connection between the tenants/outcomes of ACT and the nature of dogs. Could it be that the connection between dog and man is exemplified by the notion that human language and cognition are the only things that separate us? Could it be that there really is a “psychology” per se to the nature of a dog in the sense that there is consciousness-as-a-function-of-being? I’m not proposing that the dog thinks-as-a-self, rather I am saying we as humans can understand that the moment of contacting our sense of “I-here-nowness” is captured like a photographic snapshot by the presence of a dog on the emotional level? Maybe ACT compliments NDT in a way that shows how human language/cognition in and of itself does not apply to working with a dog, only the literal energy behind the use of language has an effect? What are your thoughts? I know some of you are in my profession, some of you behaviorists in particular. I’m still learning so cut me some slack if I’m off base a bit! Check it out:




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s