Rating: 
Summary: Good or Bad - We Choose It
Review: (...)RESONANCE: Already agreeing with about 95% of Brian Lennon's strongly positive and comprehensive 16-July-98 review, I can explore other topics. Recently I stumbled upon Glasser's 1965 Reality Therapy explaining his theory that mental illness does not exist (except in brain-damage-observable diseases: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's...) He believes that most individuals, diagnosed to be mentally ill, will (usually without medications) greatly reduce their symptoms and increase their competence with life if all persons around them will emphasize that the persons with the symptoms are responsible for all of their own choices and behaviors, and will teach them effective and acceptable methods for getting their needs met. What a gem! - 165 pages of straight-forward methodology which the author had used for getting institutionalized juvenile offenders and long-term psychiatrically-hospitalized war veterans to develop successful lives outside institutions. Having encountered little such thinking in about 40 other books on what is today variously diagnosed as mental illness, I was also happy to find and read both Glasser's excellent Reality Therapy in Action (2000), and his Choice Theory (1998) (reviewed here). Glasser also has acknowledged the choice-theory-like methodologies of Albert Ellis, W. Edwards Deming and Herb Kelleher. Also, Thomas Szasz, M.D. basically agrees with Glasser in his, The Myth of Mental Illness (1974). CHOICE THEORY: Glasser seems to prove that individuals exhibit symptoms of mental and (much of) physical illness by choice, and that these symptoms are the best choice available to them at the time. He has us understand, for example, that hearing voices, "depressing," "panicking," "phobicking," "compulsing," "sicking," "headaching" and "arthritising" might all serve as our chosen methods to control ourselves or others or to quickly get urgently-needed help or attention. To illustrate the voluntary nature of some illnesses, Glasser writes, "...experiments have shown that a person who is allergic to strawberries may break out in hives when he or she goes into a room with strawberry-patterned wallpaper." FALSE MEMORY THEORY: Perhaps Glasser missteps when, for childhood sexual abuse cases (hallmark is denial) he confoundingly perpetuates denial by arguing in favor of false memory theory. It seems to me that the publicized false memory cases, which might have averted two or three erroneous prosecutions, probably have functioned primarily to liberate and license thousands of child abusers. Cynics might even argue that false memory theory has helped to maintain sexual abuse of children at its historic high level in order to insure employment in the psychology professions. With prevalence running at 20-25%, how could Glasser even relate to his clients if he doubts their experience? While I don't know the answer, I am reluctant to dismiss him here. After all, he had a high level of success in the 1960's with counseling female juvenile offenders almost all of whom had been sexually abused. CHOICE THEORY AND FALSE MEMORY THEORY: Suppose a client states that she is so depressed from losing her leg (20 years ago when her father accidentally backed the car over her) that she has never sought employment or marriage. Most would recommend that she defocus the accident and create the best possible life she could for herself. But should she defocus if, instead of losing a leg, she had lost her childhood innocence via sexual abuse? How many of us, if we could choose, would actually prefer to have lost a leg over losing sexual innocence in childhood? If that would be a difficult decision then perhaps there is a similarity in the counter-productiveness of dwelling on either loss. I wonder whether experience has taught Glasser that, even when he believes that for a particular client sexual abuse did occur, it is therapeutically better not to "credit," it with belief or discussion. Could it be that if one has 25 hours of abusive sexual experience and then has 25 hours of counseling about it that the sum of bad experience would be 50 hours? One who argues that leg loss and sexual abuse cannot be compared might come to realize that the sexual abuse experience is more subject to choice in thinking because leg loss is much more conspicuous. Of course persons suffering trauma can never be the same as persons who have not, but I think Glasser would have us realize that, if they can create personally and professionally successful lives, the significance of the trauma will diminish. On some highways we are vulnerable to instant death or grave injury about once every second. We must choose to not think about this in our daily commutes lest we develop a phobia or "phobia" and become dysfunctional. Could this type of choice be called a mental health error? But then how might Glasser counsel an "experiencer" (he downplays victimhood) of childhood sexual abuse who tells him that her marriage is ruined because she gets an abuser replay when she and her husband make love? I gather that he would tell her that she is actually choosing to bring these old memories (however unwelcome) into her marriage bed, and he might point out that on some occasions the replay has not occurred. He would then provide guidance for resolving problems in her current relationships (especially with her husband) so that this symptom would diminish or eventually go away. LIMITATIONS: I think that Glasser's acknowledgment of his own limitations and failures boosts his credibility. He implies lack of success with sociopaths and the "workless" as he strongly advises women not to marry them. And he uses the condition "if the client is willing to talk, listen and think about what is going on...." He has acknowledged that he was able to help some clients only because judges had ordered them to participate in counseling. Also he now opposes the still-in-use Ten Step Discipline Program which he developed in the 1970's - because he says that it does not work. Great book for knowledge acquisition and thought challenge!
Rating: 
Summary: Quack Theory: Psychology for the Healthy
Review: At its best, Choice Theory is the superficial ramblings of Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil. At its worst, it's the domain of a pseudoscience crackpot. In short, you are responsible for your own thoughts and actions and you can't control anyone else's behavior. Fair enough. However, Glasser takes a turn to Quackville when he states "all long-lasting psychological problems are relationship problems" and "the problem relationship is always part of our present lives." Apparently he's never heard of existentialism.
Glasser states that people choose to be bi-polar, schizophrenic, and manic-depressive as well as physically ill. I'll accept that in some exceptional cases physical illness is psychosomatic but he takes it to a ludicrous extreme. Ironically, he states that we have "five genetic needs, survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun." He offers no data to support his seemingly arbitrary list of needs. Hmm, a genetic basis for fun but people choose to be schizophrenic?
The pseudoscience shines through in a graph on page 9 depicting technological progress increasing from the year 1900 to 2000 but "human progress-better relationships" as flat. Of course no reference is given for the data, how could there be any? The book was published in 1998!
In all fairness, this book is not meant to supplant the DSM IV but rather help otherwise well adjusted people in their lives. This would be fine if it were not for the denial that some problems don't have anything to do with an interpersonal relationship. The gimmicky advice for communication between couples is fine (enter the "Circle!") but Glasser avoids directly addressing what couples should do when there is an impasse. In addition, the examples in the book present straightforward problems that can be easily addressed. I don't believe the phrase cognitive dissonance appears once in the book.
Self-help books are not "one size fits all" propositions. Find one that speaks to your specific questions. As for Choice Theory, choose something else.
Rating:
Summary: Choice theory brought home to me just how free I really am.
Review: Can a book about psychology bring a new measure of personal freedom to the reader? Indeed it can! In his latest book, psychiatrist William Glasser offers freedom from widely accepted ideas that play havoc with good relationships. This is a book about relationships. It shows how all of us can improve every personal relationship in our lives, and, thereby, help us solve many of the problems that plague our times. Best of all, this is a wonderfully readable book. The reader gets acquainted, up close and personal, with real people who present real problems-problems all too familiar to most of us. Within the privacy of the counseling room, we are treated to word-for-word accounts that demonstrate how Dr. Glasser sets the stage for those who are troubled to open new and liberating doors for themselves. We are even treated to a view of the psychiatrist-writer counseling literary characters, such as Francesca in THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY. The book, REALITY THERAPY, published in 1965, brought Dr. Glasser to international prominence. A book about counseling, it pioneered a movement, now widely followed. The current style of counseling is no longer aloof and mysterious, no longer rooted in futile attempts to re-live the past, but rooted in the here and now and directed toward need-fulfilling involvement with others. This new book demonstrates, in a most persuasive way, the startling idea that we choose all that we do. What a liberating idea! We even choose misery at times, but usually we have better choices, and the author shows us graphically that we are free to make these. Much of the unhappiness that most of us endure-at least, periodically-stems from the widespread belief we hold that people can be forced, through threats or rewards, to do things they do not want to do. Glasser refers to this massive tendency toward coercion, ever present in our society, as external control psychology. Choice Theory is the exact opposite of domination and invasive power. The new choice theory is, indeed, a remedy for all this misery. Without resorting to threats or bribes, we can vastly increase the likelihood that people will do what we want them to do if we learn and apply choice theory. Glasser's convincing explanation of this practical way of improving our relationships is the great achievement of this book. Though not a book about religion, we find here a consistency with the Golden Rule, as the author himself points out. This remarkable book explores the relationships that most affect the quality of our lives: love, marriage, work, and family relationships. The author shows how schools can be true centers for quality learning. In a chapter on management in the workplace, Glasser shows why W. Edwards Deming met with such stunning success, first in Japan and later in America. Glasser also gives his view of why Southwest Airlines has been so extraordinarily successful in a highly competitive industry. Having pointed the way to quality in our most important relationships, Glasser offers a bold proposal for creating quality communities. His proposal for vast social impact is not just a remote ideal; he describes the steps that are now being taken in one American city. If Corning, New york can do it, why not your community? Dr. Minor Morgan is an attorney and practicing psychologist in Dallas, Texas.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book for gainng control of your life
Review: I am (by trade & training) an "Instrument & Controls" person, so when I stumbled upon Dr. Glassers "Control Theory" I was actually looking for "manufacturing" type controls. Taking required psych/soc courses in school, I had a hard time buying into their theory of "stimulus/response" (old Pavlov & his dog) etc. and had many heated discussions on why I thought this was bull. But when I read "Control Theory" (now updated to "Choice Theory"), things that I had observed and "understood" (via my "controls" background) fell into place. Everyone knows (?) people don't behave like machines, (but sometimes??...) and this book gives some clue into the reasonings behind motivation's & just what makes us do the things we do. Loved it!
Rating:
Summary: Good or Bad - We Choose It
Review: RESONANCE: Already agreeing with about 95% of Brian Lennon's positive and comprehensive 16-July-98 review, I can explore other topics. Recently I stumbled upon Glasser's 1965 Reality Therapy depicting his theory that mental illness does not exist (except in brain-damage-observable diseases: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's...) He believes that most individuals, diagnosed to be mentally ill, will (usually without medications) greatly reduce their symptoms and increase their competence with life if all persons around them will emphasize that they are responsible for all their choices and behaviors, and will teach them effective and acceptable methods for getting their needs met. What a gem! - 165 pages of straight-forward methodology which the author had used for getting institutionalized juvenile offenders and long-term psychiatrically-hospitalized war-veterans to develop successful lives outside institutions. Having encountered little such thinking in about 40 other books on what is today variously diagnosed as mental illness, I was happy to also find and read both Glasser's excellent 2000 Reality Therapy in Action, and his 1998 Choice Theory (reviewed here). The choice-theory-like methodologies of Albert Ellis, W. Edwards Deming and Herb Kelleher are acknowledged. Also, Thomas Szasz basically agrees with Glasser in his 1974, The Myth of Mental Illness. CHOICE THEORY: Glasser seems to prove that individuals exhibit symptoms of mental and (much of) physical illness by choice, and that these symptoms are the best choice available to him at the time. Glasser has us understand, for example, that hearing voices, "depressing," "panicking," "phobicking," "compulsing," "sicking," "headaching" and "arthritising" might all serve as our chosen methods to control ourselves or others or to quickly get urgently-needed help or attention. To illustrate the voluntary (choice) nature of some illnesses, Glasser writes, "...experiments have shown that a person who is allergic to strawberries may break out in hives when he or she goes into a room with strawberry-patterned wallpaper." FALSE MEMORY THEORY: Perhaps Glasser missteps when, for childhood sexual abuse cases (hallmark is denial) he confoundingly perpetuates denial by arguing in favor of false memory theory. It seems to me that the publicized false memory cases, which might have averted two or three erroneous prosecutions, probably have functioned primarily to liberate and license child abusers. Cynics might even argue that false memory theory has helped to maintain sexual abuse of children at its historic high level in order to insure employment in the psychology professions. (A tragic analogy can be found in Samuel Epstein's, The Politics of Cancer Revisited, where he explains how various industries are fed when cancer incidence is maintained at a high level despite abundant research on successful prevention.) With prevalence running at 20-25%, how could Glasser relate to his clients if he doubts their experience? I don't know, but he cannot be dismissed here - he had a high level of success in the 1960's with counseling the female juvenile offenders almost all of whom had been sexually abused. CHOICE THEORY AND FALSE MEMORY THEORY: Suppose a client states that she is so depressed from losing her leg (20 years ago when her father accidentally backed the car over her) that she has never sought employment or marriage. Most would recommend that she defocus the accident and create the best possible life she could for herself. But should she defocus if, instead of losing a leg, she had lost her childhood innocence via sexual abuse? How many of us, if we could choose, would actually prefer to have lost a leg over losing sexual innocence in childhood? If that would be a difficult decision then perhaps there is a similarity in the counter-productiveness of dwelling on either loss. I wonder whether experience has taught Glasser that, even when he believes that for a particular client sexual abuse did occur, it is therapeutically better not to "credit," it with belief or discussion. Could it be that if one has 25 hours of abusive sexual experience and then has 25 hours of counseling about it that the sum of bad experience would be 50 hours? One who argues that leg loss and sexual abuse cannot be compared might come to realize that the sexual abuse experience is more subject to choice in thinking because leg loss is much more conspicuous. Of course persons suffering trauma can never be the same as persons who have not, but I think Glasser would have us realize that if they can create personally and professionally successful lives the significance of the trauma will diminish. On some highways we are vulnerable to instant death or grave injury about once every second. We must choose to not think about this in our daily commutes lest we develop a phobia or "phobia" and become dysfunctional. Would this choice be a mental health error? But then how might Glasser counsel an "experiencer" (he downplays victimhood) of childhood sexual abuse who tells him that her marriage is ruined because she gets an abuser replay when she and her husband make love? I gather that he would tell her that she is actually choosing to bring these old memories (however unwelcome) into her marriage bed, and he might point out that on some occasions the replay has not occurred. He would then provide guidance for resolving problems in her current relationships (especially with her husband) so that this symptom would diminish or go away. LIMITATIONS: I think that Glasser's acknowledgment of his limitations and failures boosts his credibility. He implies lack of success with sociopaths and the "workless" as he strongly advises women not to marry them. And he uses the condition "if the client is willing to talk, listen and think about what is going on..." (Some aren't willing.) He has acknowledged that he was able to help some clients only because judges had ordered them to participate in counseling. Also he now opposes the still-in-use Ten Step Discipline Program which he developed in the 1970's - because it does not work. Great book for knowledge acquisition and thought challenge!
Rating: 
Summary: The theory is valuable, but may be harmful to some.
Review: The book outlines Choice Theory, a belief that all problems we face are "relationship problems" -- employee/manager, teacher/student, spouse/spouse, etc. It states that when we give up the notion that we can control anyone else but ourselves, our problems will disappear, including psychiatric disorders, bad marriages, and failing schools. While mostly valuable, the theory shows its seams in its treatment of the most distressed populations -- those with mental illnesses and those experiencing domestic violence. The former assertion -- that all mental illness is a chosen behavior -- is puzzling at best; the book's short treatment of the latter, however, is particularly grating, stating that traditional, "external control" methods of dealing with those choosing to abuse -- such as treating domestic violence as crimes, I suppose -- are ineffective, and that "diversion programs" to get offenders into Choice Theory counseling are the only real way to end the problem. There is nothing to back up such a wild claim (disproven by dozens of models showing that treating domestic violence as a crime is the only effective deterrent) save for a citation of a program in Ohio which shows a certain "success rate" for those completing a Reality Therapy program -- failing to mention what a "success" is, who goes through it, how it is measured, how long it lasts, how much safer the victims of abuse actually feel after their abusive partners finish the course, and so on. Because the book makes such grand claims about improving realtionships, and because abuse in relationships is unarguably the biggest challenge that the two people can face, such short shrift undermines belief in the theory. When the author and his theory stick to standard, common-sense suggestions, the book is a welcome addition to the self-help field; when it is stretched by more serious problems, however, it merely appears naive.
Rating: 
Summary: Any way you slice it, Freud is hokum
Review: This book should be required reading for everyone in America. Yes, I am a therapist and have utilized Glasser's advice with various individuals with wonderful results. The world truly would be a different place if we changed our attempts to control others and actually realized (and lived our lives like we realize) that the only person you have any control over is yourself. It's not only a freeing concept but it also forces people to stop making excuses for why their lives are not the way they want them to be.
Rating:
Summary: This guys is from another planet.
Review: This book was a great source of entertainment, much like a bad scifi film is. There are not enough words to describe how feeble minded this book is. L. Ron Hubbard nothing on Dr. Glasser. If you want everlasting happiness just buy his book, check yourself into his institute and let him council you to a better you. Don't forget your white robe but leave your thinking cap at home.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book, much feared by politically correct types
Review: Unfortunately, many mainstream reviewers have criticized the work of noted Austrian-school psychiatrist Dr. William Glasser. Please do not be deterred by these politically motivated diatribes; "Choice Theory" is a superb addition to his works on Reality Therapy, an excellent 20th century development of psychoanalysis. The attacks on Glasser's work can be clearly seen as the uninformed bitterness of 3rd rate intelligences; comments such as "everybody knows Freud is pap" display an ignorance of psychology which is virtually incalculable. As far as therapy and modernity goes, Freud IS psychology, modern psychology is just a series of footnotes to Freud. Glasser's work is a Freudian development which attempts to balance that outlook with optimism and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, many politically correct types such as feminists and liberals have their own agenda against personal responsibility, they prefer to see themselves as victims and indeed glory in victimhood. Dr. Glasser's work with its emphasis on personal responsibility inadvertently shames them, hence the visceral reaction against his work. It would be a great tragedy if disturbed persons (who abound among leftist Americans and Europeans) were put off from taking a psychological route which has excellent potential to cure their neuroses. If anyone can clear up the issues of the walking wounded and others whose personal problems seem to be their only sense of identity, it is Dr. William Glasser and Reality Therapy. Please ignore negative reviews by those of his detractors who are clearly neurotic; truly that would be letting the inmates run the asylum.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book, much feared by politically correct types
Review: Unfortunately, many mainstream reviewers have criticized the work of noted Austrian-school psychiatrist Dr. William Glasser. Please do not be deterred by these politically motivated diatribes; "Choice Theory" is a superb addition to his works on Reality Therapy, an excellent 20th century development of psychoanalysis. The attacks on Glasser's work can be clearly seen as the uninformed bitterness of 3rd rate intelligences; comments such as "everybody knows Freud is pap" display an ignorance of psychology which is virtually incalculable. As far as therapy and modernity goes, Freud IS psychology, modern psychology is just a series of footnotes to Freud. Glasser's work is a Freudian development which attempts to balance that outlook with optimism and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, many politically correct types such as feminists and liberals have their own agenda against personal responsibility, they prefer to see themselves as victims and indeed glory in victimhood. Dr. Glasser's work with its emphasis on personal responsibility inadvertently shames them, hence the visceral reaction against his work. It would be a great tragedy if disturbed persons (who abound among leftist Americans and Europeans) were put off from taking a psychological route which has excellent potential to cure their neuroses. If anyone can clear up the issues of the walking wounded and others whose personal problems seem to be their only sense of identity, it is Dr. William Glasser and Reality Therapy. Please ignore negative reviews by those of his detractors who are clearly neurotic; truly that would be letting the inmates run the asylum.
|
