William Glasser's Choice Theory: Scientific Foundations?

bipolka

Glasser Institute seems to promote this idea that the core of William Glasser's teachings find strong support both in Applied Psychology studies, as well as Neuroscience research. Also, they insist the RT's effectiveness has also been researched. Yet, my attempting to dig up something on any of that proves rather futile right now. And people from Glasser Institute fail to provide any sources to articles, studies etc. to support what they say. I am rather perplexed: has anybody any ideas?

JuliusCaesar

Did you try Google Scholar?

bipolka

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Did you try Google Scholar?

sure I did.

hotspur

I have never considered choice theory / reality therapy to be well grounded in science. If you can find a copy of Glasser's Control Theory book from the 1980s it will give you a sense of where it comes from. A lot of his choice theory stuff comes from Bill Powers's perceptual control theory. I happened to be thinking about such negative feedback mechanisms only this morning.

The current incarnation of their journal is available for free if you go to the William Glasser Institute homepage and sign up for their email list, it has the last 3 years of it on the site. Although to be honest the articles don't tend to be up to much.

I don't think that choice theory / reality therapy would be near of the top of the list for people who are concerned with evidence-based practice tbh. But it can be handy training for certain environments because it is rather uncomplicated.

JuliusCaesar

bipolka wrote: »

sure I did.

exactly.

bipolka

hotspur wrote: »

A lot of his choice theory stuff comes from Bill Powers's perceptual control theory. I happened to be thinking about such negative feedback mechanisms only this morning.

Thanks for that. I've begun reading up on it. The major difference I see is that with PCT a source of control is the non-introspective 'organism' acting mechanistically on the basis of information it receives at various layers of perceptual hierarchy. Whereas Glasser's 'brain' has more of a quality of an introspecting subject who always consciously chooses to process information as this or that because of a number of filters that operate within our perceived world-tunnel (knowledge, value-system, quality pictures). Yet, this subject is also very prone to a form of 'suggestion' whereby (s)he thinks (s)he is under all sorts of coercive influences. Thus, it suffices to teach the subject that (s)he is under a delusion of being coerced, and the subject becomes even more existentially and socially autonomous and responsible.

In other words, Glasser does not seek to remove introspection from the loop, unlike behaviorists.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

exactly.

yeah: Prof. Google... what would we do without him :P

bipolka

It brings me to think that pseudo- or non-scientific metaphysical theorising like Glasser's is symptomatic of the science's gap in addressing precisely metaphysical problems of agency, subject, will and so on (as opposed to just merely a pop-philosophy tool to teach metaphysics to the unlearned, which it is of course too).

hotspur

bipolka wrote: »

It brings me to think that pseudo- or non-scientific metaphysical theorising like Glasser's is symptomatic of the science's gap in addressing precisely metaphysical problems of agency, subject, will and so on (as opposed to just merely a pop-philosophy tool to teach metaphysics to the unlearned, which it is of course too).

I think it's a very lofty description of Bill Glasser's thinking to call it metaphysical theorising. I experienced it as one of the most philosophically weak psychotherapeutic modalities out there. Glasser just isn't a heavyweight thinker. Bantom weight maybe.

bipolka

hotspur wrote: »

I think it's a very lofty description of Bill Glasser's thinking to call it metaphysical theorising. I experienced it as one of the most philosophically weak psychotherapeutic modalities out there. Glasser just isn't a heavyweight thinker. Bantom weight maybe.

No, I wasn't assessing his intellectual weight: you are taking it too far. All I said was: he is symptomatic of a gap which lies in that area precisely.