Mr Hayes' ideas sound very similar to those in the book on 'the conquest of mind' or something (can't recall the exact title), and others on meditation as practiced by mystics for centuries, written by Sri Eknath Easwaran. Read the first sentence in the book, which goes something like: "Life is hard," or something to the effect that suffering is more the norm in life.

Today, the common culture focuses on how one satisfy one's WANTS in life (and not one's real NEEDS) in order to "live well," as defined by the consumerist culture. Mr Easwaran's books teaches one how to slow down and really live in the moment, in order to have a fuller life, in contrast to the constant pressure upon everyone today to multitask so as to get everything done yesterday. The latter can be a source of great stress for many people.

And so, while the USA boasts the most materially abundant people in the world, are they necessarily the happiest, too?

This book sounds a lot like "The Road Less Traveled" by M. Scott Peck. The first line in the book is "Life is Difficult." I am not saying this isn't a profound truth that we need a large dose of in our society that seems to think consuming fixes all ills. I just don't find this to be a very original concept.

There are also similar concepts in Buddhist writings, and elsewhere I am sure.

Traister should have acknowledged this in her article.

Looking over my bookshelf...Pema Chodron, Lama Surya Das, Thich Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, and, oh yeah, the Buddha himself, all expressed a very similar message. And maybe Mr. (Dr.?) Hayes acknowledges this in his book, or in other articles, but the fact that it sounds like many of his ideas are coming straight out of the Buddhist traditions should have been acknowledged in this article.

...my failing memory confusing M Scott Peck's book with Easwaran's. I believe Mr Caveal is correct. The first line in 'The Road Less Traveled' is 'Life is difficult.' I stand (or sit) corrected.

Also agree with other poster that the ideas are, indeed, very Buddhist in nature.

OK, so maybe his ideas come out of various other traditions, especially Buddhism. But no one seems to be thinking about the fact that not everyone responds to Buddhism (as many might reject it as silly hippie shit) and that mainstream Americans in 2006 perhaps need to hear ths message in this way: in the form of the science of psychology and in self-help books based on this psychology.

Mm, don't know 'bout the Buddha but you could start with the bible, the blues, and yeah, the majority of the people on the planet. In keeping with this radical new theory I want to get a headstart and tell you all: the earth really does revolve around the sun.

The bold declaration that "People suffer"--both as a concept and as a "grabber" opening in a self-help work-- did not originate with Steven Hayes. M. Scott Peck (who passed away recently) famously began his landmark self-help book "The Road Less Travelled" with the statement "Life is hard" which, then as now, ran counter to the quick fixes offered in most self-help books. Being in the field himself, I imagine Mr. Hayes has read that one. So it's homage at best, and maybe just a blatant rip-off of a winning formula.

Note that decades ago the legendary screenwriter William Goldman took the idea (independently of Peck, no doubt) a step further with his maxim that "Life is pain. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something." Now there's some *useful* advice.

I feel compelled to defend Prof. Hayes and Ms. Traister from the many letters essentially saying Hayes stole from Buddhism (or elsewhere).

I'm not sure if it is possible to have a philosophy that is entirely original. About a week ago I read a twenty-year-old book by Alexander Lowen called Fear of Life. In it, he argues (among other things) that failure is inevitable, and that we should not be afraid to fail, but should focus our attention on being, rather than on trying to achieve success. The book was thought-provoking, but not brilliant, and inspired me to return to some of the similar ideas espoused in the Buddhist texts on my bookshelves. It was only a small leap from Lowen's being to Buddhist mindfulness.

This morning I listened to a radio program (the NPR KQED show Forum) on the book Breaking the Spell, by Daniel Dennett. Dennett also wrote a book called Consciousness Explained a few years back, and someone called in to ask why he hadn't acknowledged in his book that his ideas were basically Buddhist.

And now I see the letters responding to this article.

The point of philosophy, psychology, and the like, is not to be original. If the point were to be original we should all just stop now. The point, it seems to me, is to make (mental) connections, explore ideas, provoke. If Hayes was inspired by Buddhist philosophy, and wants to acknowledge that, so be it. But we can't expect every writer to acknowledge every inspiration, or dismiss every writer or scholar whose ideas resemble ideas we have encountered elsewhere.

Just a quick note from the so-called "rock star" himself (sheesh)

Reacting to the posts about the interview: I'd agree that many of the basics behind the ACT message are not unique. It is not just Buddhism or Scott Peck (etc). Parts of this message are in most spiritual and religious traditions (and it is a little shocking that modern culture seems surprised to hear them! It shows how far we have drifted from the wisdom in many of our traditions). I've written about this regularly (I've done several articles on the link between ACT and Buddhism for example) so I can only agree with posts that point out basic similarities.

That being said, the model and the science behind it is deeper and more involved than these basic ideas. You will see that in the book mentioned but you can also check that part out for free at contextualpsychology.org. Go wander around. See for yourself.

What you will find there is something new in the behavioral sciences at least. Is it related to other things? Sure. I have a file a couple of inches thick called "just like ACT" made of of all the connections folks have sent me.

What I think is unique is that the ACT / RFT work constitutes a) a scientific model of human suffering b) linked to a basic research program on human cognition, c) with a fair amount of new applied technology based on that model (and a nice organization of a old technology as well), and d) all of that linked to systematic applied research on outcomes and processes of change. There are about 120 studies spread out over more than 20 years in ACT and its basic research program on human language and cognition, Relational Frame Theory (RFT). There are almost 1400 researchers and practitioners world wide working to develop this work -- and it is not a big hierarchical guru thing. It is an open, self-critical, empirical scientific tradition ... and some of what we have learned was just not there before.

We think we know something scientifically about the core feature of human language and cognition, where it comes from, why it screws people up, and a bit of what to do about it. RFT is leading to new methods of education. It is helping us establish a sense of self in children without this awareness. ACT is leading to new ways to reduce prejudice, alieviate depression, stop smoking, dealwith physical disease etc etc. It is kind of neat that in general terms it winds up in a similar place as ancient spiritual and religious traditions, but that does not mean it is same thing.

Anyway I'm fine with being busted for what I've written or for failures of the ACT / RFT community of researchers and practitioners -- but do remember that Time Magazine stories and interviews are not that. Generally I've found if I can get folks to look more closely they then see that we've done our homework (at least to a degree) and there really are some novel contributions in there (this is my subtle encouragement to buy "Get out of Your Mind" at least, if not the more basic tomes)

By the way -- the phase "experience and avoidance" in the story should read "experiential avoidance." It is one of the central concepts in ACT and one of the most researched concepts, with over 30 studies (and about 7,000 subjects) showing that avoiding your emotions, fusing with your thoughts, and letting them run your behavior is just bad business everywhere you look. That was the only major typo I saw that changed my meaning.

- S

Steve Hayes

University of Nevada

hayes@unr.edu