You may have noticed that Rob and I are pretty passionate about ACT. If you have met either of us in person you will know that if you show even a glimmer of interest in the topic we will happily go on and on about valued directions and experiential avoidance for hours. We might even start ranting on about Relational Frame Theory if you are very lucky!
Sometimes I have the thought that just possibly we might sound a bit crazy. That our passion might come across a tad evangelistic.
The reason I am so enthusiastic about this approach is because ACT and the science behind it (contextual behavioural science) combine scientific rigour with an attempt to answer the ‘big questions about understanding and improving the human condition’ (This is based on a passage in The Neighborhood Project by David Sloan Wilson).
How cool is that?!
Working with ACT 
Interesting that “cool” and “passionate” are mentioned in the same post…
And I would like to add that ACT is a young science, and thus has “a youthful” enthusiasm” about it.
Which is why I find it important to ask myself frequently: what else is there, in my field, other than ACT/ RFT?
Having said that, I really appreciate you mentioning the risks that come with enthusiasm…
Just like some of the good trainers in other fields remind themselves to “undersell and overdeliver”. And then:It seems that there is a difference between noticing overenthusiasm and stepping back from it (defusing from it) and use “underselling” as a better way of selling…
Thanks Maarten!
I feel like you understood my concern – which is such a good feeling. I agree if we are committed to science then we need to keep questioning and if we are committed to ACT we need to hold all of this lightly
best
Rachel