This video gives a good, brief explanation of Relational Frame Theory (RFT).

FIML practice can be understood in terms of RFT. What FIML practice does is give partners immediate access to their neurotic “relational frames” of reference, their mistaken interpretations. When we see a few times with great clarity that our neurosis is based on a mistaken interpretation (a mistaken relational frame) of what our partner actually means or meant, we will be able to change our relational frame (correct our mistaken interpretation) without much trouble.

FIML works especially well for making this sort of change in relational frames because it deals with those frames the moment they arise, while they are still just starting to be accessed. FIML also works well in this respect because it is based on real data shared and agreed upon by partners who trust each other.

Here is another article on Relational Frame Theory.

It’s less than a week before the winter solstice and our vegetable garden continues to support a few hangers-on such as cabbages, arugula, and leeks. But the bounty of summer is a distant memory. And so we are now starting to dig into our pantry of home-canned goods.

I have only been gardening for a few years and canning for even less. I have not yet gotten to the point where I can reliably produce the very high yields I desire. My insecurity about this is what primed me for a neurotic reaction the other night.

In an effort to conserve our limited supply of homemade tomato sauce from our own homegrown tomatoes, we occasionally use store-bought sauce instead. This is what we did the other night. When we sat down to eat, my partner almost immediately began commenting on the dinner. “Your sauce is so much better,” he said. And then a few bites later, “This store-bought sauce just doesn’t make me feel as good as yours does…there’s just no substitute for homegrown tomatoes.”

Neurotic human that I am, I could not help taking these comments as a reminder of my failure to grow enough tomatoes so that we could have homemade sauce as often as we wanted, which turns out to be pretty often. I was pretty sure that he wasn‘t intending to remind me of my failures as a gardener. But not being totally sure, I responded by growing a little bit sullen and wishing he would stop making those comments.

“Yes, yes, I know homemade sauce is better. Don’t worry, I’ll grow enough tomatoes next year. What else can I say? For now, can’t we just enjoy our dinner?” I said, probably somewhat sharply.

At this point we commenced with a FIML analysis, during which I learned that my partner had only been trying to compliment me when he made those comments. The rational part of my mind had suspected this, but FIML gave me a way to make sure, so that I wouldn’t leave the table believing that I might have been indirectly scolded. The exchange went something like this:

Him: OK, stop. What is in your mind right now? Why do you sound upset?

Me: I just wonder why you keep making those comments. I think the sauce tastes good.

Him: It does taste good. I was only commenting in that way to emphasize how much better yours is.

Me: But we know that homemade sauce is always going to be better. I guess I’m wondering if maybe you’re subtly grousing about my not having made enough to fully stock the pantry?

Him: No, not at all.

Me: So, there’s no part of you that’s criticizing me for not having grown enough tomatoes last summer?

Him: No, there’s none of that whatsoever. I was simply trying to say, “Honey, your tomato sauce is far better than any commercial sauce and I really appreciate it.”

Now, this is not just some typical make-up session where the offending party says what s/he thinks the other person wants to hear in order to smooth things over. This is a FIML exchange in which I have the opportunity to find out whether my suspicions are true about what my partner is thinking. Prerequisite to FIML are mutual agreements to tell the truth and to believe the other person. So, I can be confident that my partner is telling the truth (“No, I was not criticizing you”) and he can be confident that I believe him (“OK, then I guess I was just being neurotic”).

In that particular exchange I was shown that what I had reacted to was a phantom in my own mind. It had nothing to do with what my partner was thinking.

FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice  is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.

The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:

• Greatly improve communication between participating partners
• Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
• Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
• Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality

These results are achieved because:

• FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
• FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
• FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
• FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
• This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed

FIML practice will also:

• Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
• Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)

FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.

Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.

The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.

FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.

The following paragraphs are from a pretty good Wikipedia article on theory of mind.

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one’s own.

Individuals who experience a theory of mind deficit have difficulty determining the intentions of others, lack understanding of how their behavior affects others, and have a difficult time with social reciprocity.

As far as I understand the term, theory of mind is generally used to assess autism spectrum disorders and behavioral problems that result from brain injuries, drug abuse, and alcoholism. I have no problem with that.

Here’s an interesting response to the theory from someone with Asperger’s Syndrome: Empathy, Mindblindness, and Theory of Mind. The author of this piece, Lynne Soraya, mainly objects to the characterization that she does not have empathy for others. She wonders if the problem is one not of a lack of empathy but of understanding.

I agree with her in more ways than one. Misapplied, theory of mind can become a high-sounding defense of conformity and the status quo. Beyond basic levels of reasonable manners and appropriateness, theory of mind can lead us to draw many false conclusions about the people we are with. If FIML has taught me one thing with great certainty it is that, while I may have some sense of what my partner is thinking or feeling, I am very often wrong in important ways and almost always sort of wrong in many subtle ways.

Look into your own mind. What do you see? Is there some solid state there? Are all of your intentions clear even to you? Why do you say what you say? What else are you thinking right now? As soon as you answer any one of these questions, the multifaceted dynamism of your mind will change again. Can you remember what was in your mind–remember with good, clear accuracy–one minute ago? I bet you can’t. How about two minutes ago? If even you cannot know what was in your own mind one minute ago and restate it clearly, how can you expect another person to really ever know what is in your mind unless you tell them while you are still able to remember yourself?

This is where real speech lives. In the moment. Speech often comes forth from us for mysterious reasons. And our partners hear our speech in their own mysterious ways. We can know these ways, but only by talking about them, only by asking. Theory of mind can help us form some general ideas, but only FIML can give us access to what our partners are truly thinking when they speak to us or listen to us.

If I say let’s go for a walk, I probably will be able to tell from your expression whether you want to go or not, and maybe even how much you want to go. But if as we leave the building you glance at a bush beside the walk, do I know why you looked there or what you are thinking? Very unlikely.

Similarly, if you speak a sentence to me, do I know the fullness of the state of your mind from which that sentence issued? No, I don’t. Hardly ever. If the sentence is at all ambiguous or even slightly emotionally charged, I may not have the slightest clue why you said it. I can guess, but the only way I can know for sure is to ask you.

Theory of mind is OK for making crude determinations about some people in some situations, but worthless for most speech or communicative acts between equal partners.

We do not know what is in other people’s minds. We are not mind readers. We can only know with certainty what they are thinking and feeling if they tell us. And that can be difficult even for them to do because even they may not know what is in their minds or why.

This is why I say that theory of mind can be sorely misapplied to become a defense of status quo conformity, status quo semiotics.

Humans are primitive beasts with poorly functioning speech capacities. If they are not attributing status quo interpretations of others to them, they will be making up their own and those will probably be neurotic (mistaken, as we have been defining that term).

Our options as people who speak and interact are not either we are autistic or we are “normal” (have good theory of mind). There is a huge other area of human speech and interaction (and this area includes both autistic and “normal” people)–no matter what you do or say, you cannot speak to another person without employing unfounded assumptions about them unless you ask and they answer honestly.

For most exchanges with strangers and acquaintances, we don’t need to know what they are thinking and feeling. We just follow the basic rules–professional or otherwise–that govern the exchange. For intimate partners and friends, however, those rules will not work. If you want real communication with your partner, you will have to do FIML or something like it. I can’t think of any other way to know their feelings and intentions.

Brain scans are getting better every day. One day, I am pretty sure, we will have inexpensive brain scanning devices that can be purchased by consumers and used at home. When that day comes, we will need a new way of talking with one another, a new way to assess how we understand each other.

Imagine two people hooked up to a brain scan device that gives very accurate readings of what is happening in their brains while they interact. Imagine also that all instances of embarrassment, lying, flattery, fear, not understanding while pretending you do, and so on show up on the brain scan device. How will people deal with that?

I think FIML will help. It surely won’t do everything, but basic FIML training will probably help people deal with the many areas of our minds that we are now used to hiding but will no longer be able to when connected to brain scanning tech.

Here is an interesting study based on data from brain scans: Extraversion Is Linked to Volume of the Orbitofrontal Cortex and Amygdala. This article says some interesting things about neuroticism versus extroversion. Basically, extroversion is not the opposite of neuroticism, but a “protective factor” that seems to guard against it. This does not make extroverts more right about things; it just makes them socially more effective in most circumstances and less liable to doubt themselves.

But FIML practice (or a lot of good introspection) shows us that being effective socially and having fewer doubts may actually indicate a “positive neurosis” in that the extrovert’s understanding of themseleves and others is based on mistaken interpretations. The mistakes may work well enough in many situations, but they are still mistakes.

My guess is that brain scan tech of the future will show these mistakes. My guess is also that society will be far richer for that. Ideally, consumer brain scan devices will allow much greater truthful lateral communication; a much greater sharing of interpersonal realities as opposed to the widespread conformance to public semiotics that is the rule now.

Of course, I am very mindful that brain scan tech could be used for horrific social control. The best way to avoid that is have a lot of people understand the technology and put it in the hands of consumers as soon as possible.

This article, Child abuse changes the brain, describes what is claimed to be the first use of “functional brain imaging” (probably fMRI) on children who have suffered abuse. It pertains to FIML practice in that it gives us some idea of how a neurosis (or stress response) looks in the brain through modern imaging technology. This technology gives us pretty good physical data compared to the behavioral/descriptive sort of data that has traditionally been used to diagnose cases like this.

This study shows that abused children, when compared to “normal” children, do have different physical reactions within their brains when exposed to photos of angry people. Very significantly, the brain scans also show that the abused children do not show any signs of having damaged brains. The physical architecture of their brains is the same as control subjects; it is just the way their brains respond that is different.

I would speculate that many/most neuroses (or kleshas or “mistaken interpretations” as we have been defining neurosis) are similar to what has been found in the children in this study. That is,  our neuroses do cause our brains to act/react differently than those without our particular “mistaken interpretation”, but they do not, generally, indicate actual brain damage or physical alteration of the brain.

Thus, FIML practice can be seen as an intervention into the neurotic reaction in the first moments it begins to occur. Rather than allow a full-blown neurotic reaction to cascade through the mind, FIML practice stops the avalanche before it begins. The mind itself is convinced that the avalanche can and should be stopped because it can see for itself that the expression (or words) it was beginning to react to did not mean what it had thought it meant. If this same neurotic reaction is stopped several times during FIML practice, it will lose its hold on the person because it will have been replaced by better data (the description by the FIML partner of what they actually were thinking or meant).

Humans all need to feel certain about at least some things. We also need to have basic mental and emotional coherence. FIML practice gives partners a very reliable level of mutual certainty and coherence.

Since FIML practice is a process—something you do with your partner—partners will be able to check and recheck their mutual understandings as often as they like. The interpersonal certitude and coherence that result from this process is amazing. It is amazing in and of itself but also because having reliable interpersonal coherence with your partner will have a deep influence on you. It will affect how you understand yourself and how you feel about yourself. It will also affect how you understand and feel about your place in the world, your place in society.

People who do not practice FIML ordinarily get certitude and coherence from outside of themselves–from TV, movies, newspapers, schools, churches, clubs, and so on. The external semiotics of cultures and subcultures created by other people give most individuals the certitude and coherence they need for psychological well-being. Insofar as external semiotics are not sufficient for the individual (and they rarely can do it all), most people fill in whatever is missing with personal interpretations. In many other posts, we have discussed how these personal interpretations are usually based on mistaken impressions. They are usually neurotic, or constitute the kleshas (wrong views, toxic fixations, mistaken interpretations, etc.) described in Buddhist literature.

FIML practice allows partners to correct their neuroses by disconfirming them with their partners. If you disconfirm a neurosis, you effectively confirm that it is/was not true and can therefore be discarded.

FIML practice also helps partners free themselves from the need to find certitude and coherence outside of themselves. As you become more secure in your communication with your partner, both of you will begin to notice that you are becoming less dependent on external semiotics.

FIML emphasizes the certitude and coherence of truth between two caring people above certitude and coherence based on conformance to social norms. FIML helps partners co-form their own subculture rather than conform to a culture created by someone else.

FIML practice can be seen as a dynamic work of art engaged in by two (or more) people. FIML practice works very well in the moment and it builds on itself by providing many moments of clarity and understanding.

FIML practice creates and defines a history of self-discovery that practitioners can share and enjoy. Since this history is based on good, clear data and since input into it is entirely up to the practitioners themselves, FIML liberates the mind from conformance to received ideas, semiotics, styles, symbols, behaviors, and so forth. FIML gives us the tool we need to freely create the relationships we want to have without illusions and without social and neurotic constraints.

FIML practice can be thought of as a sort of interpersonal performance art. By doing it, we create insights and understandings in each other’s minds. FIML liberates us from the conventional and/or habitual behaviors and interpretations that have dominated and clouded our thoughts.

FIML can only be done with another person. The person you choose to do it with is already special to you. Ideally, you already love them. Do FIML with love and understanding. FIML is a tool to make art within and between your minds.