First, a couple links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Glasser
<!--[endif]-->

Second, a question.

Does anyone have experience with William Glaser’s 'Reality Therapy' or 'Choice Theory' and if so, what is your 'opinion' on there 'effectiveness' or 'legitimacy'.

Also, I found the following to be relative to the subject and a fun read:

"Normality and illness judgments

Critics of psychiatry generally do not dispute the notion that some people have emotional or psychological problems, or that some psychotherapies do not work for a given problem. They do usually disagree with psychiatry on the source of these problems; the appropriateness of characterizing these problems as illness; and on what the proper management options are. For instance, a primary concern of anti-psychiatry is that an individual's degree of adherence to communally, or majority, held values may be used to determine that person's level of mental health. Using this logic they argue that in a communal display of violence like a public stoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning), a person who abstains from violence could be diagnosed mentally ill and should, subsequently, be treated. Furthermore, if disagreement with the majority in a society constitutes delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion), then anyone whose statements are considered by that majority to be incorrect is delusional, regardless of the actual correctness of his or her ideas; or, alternately, the criteria by which a belief is deemed to be a delusion must necessarily fluctuate with the majority's opinion. Under this definition, critics of psychiatry argue, early proponents of heliocentrism, such as Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo), would have been rightly characterized as delusional since their ideas were widely held to be incorrect when they were originally formulated; it is only because the majority currently backs a heliocentric model of the solar system that an opposing belief might now be considered a "delusion".

In addition, many feel that they are being pathologized for simply being different. Some people diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_Syndrome) or autism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism) hold this position (see autism rights movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_rights_movement)). While many parents of children diagnosed autistic oppose the efforts of autistic activists, there are some who say they value the uniqueness of their children and do not desire a “cure” for their autism. The autistic community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_community) has coined a number of terms that would appear to form the basis for a new branch of identity politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics); terms such as “neurodiversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity)”, “neurotypical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical)” and “neurodivergent (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurodivergent&action=edit)”.<sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint">[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]</sup>

It has been argued by philosophers like Foucault that characterizations of "mental illness" are indeterminate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_in_philosophy) and reflect the hierarchical structures of the societies from which they emerge rather than any precisely-defined qualities which distinguish a "healthy" mind from a "sick" one. Furthermore, if a tendency toward self-harm is taken as an elementary symptom of mental illness, then humans, as a species, are arguably insane in that they have tended throughout recorded history to destroy their own environments, to make war with one another, etc."


Qouted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

There are so many logical fallacies in those paragraphs that I really don't know where to begin.

However, in the interest of brevity, I'll address the most blatant fallacy: straw man.

A straw man fallacy, for those not familiar with the rules of logic, is where an argument constructs a false and oversimplified version of another viewpoint, for the purpose of then knocking it down.

This article suffers greatly from the straw man fallacy in that if grossly misstates many facets of psychiatric medicine. Most psychiatric diagnoses require that the symptoms create an impairment in one or more life activities. ADHD, for instance, specifically requires that the symptoms create impairment or dysfunction in at least two separate areas of life activity, such as school and work. Most psychiatrists agree that impairment or dysfunction is required for something to be considered an illness. Variations which do not cause impairment or dysfunction may be studied to the extent that they might reveal interesting new information on the human mind, but would not be considered an illness per se.

Also, the author appears to believe that psychiatric diagnoses are made based on one instance of one single symptom. Again, this is simply not true, although there may be certain egregious incidents such as suicide attempts or violent assault that might necessitate immediate treatment.

The author also misunderstands the concept of delusional thought. Galilleo would not have been characterized as delusional, regardless of whether his theories were correct. It is not the opinion that demonstrates delusional thought, but the level of rational thought that leads to it. Galilleo's theories on gravitation were based upon experiment and observation, he had carefully gathered evidence to support his contentions and distributed it through appropriate channels. Had he stood on a street corner and screamed that all objects fall with the same acceleration regardless of weight and that the earth revolves around the sun, refusing to be quiet even when the situation was clearly inappropriate, and in fact displayed a complete lack of comprehension that a street corner was not an appropriate place to discuss these views, and if, when asked politely for evidence, he had spit in his opponent's face and accused him of being a part of some grand conspiracy to hold the earth still, and claimed that he had learned this knowledge from sources that were beyond anyone else's ability to understand, then yes, he would be considered delusional.

Similarly, if we want to look at anti-social views, the question is not whether one voluntarily chooses to go against commonly accepted social practices. The issue is whether one comprehends the commonly accepted social practices. If someone chooses to go without clothing at a nudist establishment, believing the majority view on clothing to be incorrect, but comprehending that the majority adhere to that belief and consciously choosing to reject it, that is not delusional. If one takes off his clothes and goes running down main street, with no comprehension that this is abnormal behavior and not even noticing that he is naked and everyone else is clothed, that is delusional.

The question is not the behavior, per se, but whether the behavior indicates a minority opinion involving rational thought, or a delusion as to the nature of one's actions or a failure to see how one's actions compare to society as a whole that could be considered a symptom of a mental illness in certain situations.

This is the nature of the straw man: the author's argument is actually correct to the extent that minority or anti-social opinions and behavior are not necessarily indicative of mental illness. However, when he pretends that psychiatry fails to account for this issue, and then uses this "observation" as evidence to bolster his point, it becomes a logical fallacy. This is what makes the straw man argument so insidious, because it is technically true but logically fallacious and therefore irrelevant. However, those not familiar with psychiatry could be forgiven for failing to spot the logical fallacy, trusting that the author is being truthful in his descriptions of psychiatry.

Now, the autism issue is actually rather interesting. Neurodiversity arose out of efforts to "cure" autistic patients, often through methods with little or no scientific validityor evidence. Unlike ADHD, there are currently no scientifically accepted methods for "curing" autism. There is evidence that medication can alleviate the symptoms of comorbid disorders (such as ADHD), and that some behavioral therapy might be useful for issues such as speech delays and language difficulty. Obviously, support from friends and family members and help with activities that are difficult for autistic persons but relatively easy for neurotypical persons can have benefits.

However, many autistic persons believe that many of the characteristics of autism are personality traits, part of the normal variation of human personality. I cannot say whether they are necessarily correct or not. Clearly autism is a naturally occuring condition, so by definition it falls into the normal variation of human behavior. To the extent that it is impairing, help should be provided (ie, if symptoms make it difficult or impossible for a child to attend school in a standard classroom, some form of alternative education should be made available), but given that there is no "cure," the argument is fairly moot.

What is rather interesting, though, is that the ones pushing "cures" on parents of autistic children are not mainstream psychiatrists. Many of them, such as Mark and David Geier, are not even psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, or even endocrinologists or specialists in internal medicine. The ones pushing chelation or even chemical castration as a cure for autism are often allied with those who denigrate the use of mainstream stimulant medication as a treatment for ADHD...although in all fairness, there are many varieties of woo, and not all are related.

Still, one must understand that the neurodiversity movement arose in response to the non-evidenced quackery being pushed upon parents of autistic children. It is not the same as the anti-psych's rejection of evidence-based medicine. If anything, the neurodiversity movement's rejection of the kind of crap spewed by the Geiers is the equivalent of ADDers rejection of the crap spewed by anti-psychiatry nutriders like the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights and its puppetmaster organization, who shall remain nameless as religious discussion is prohibited.

Finally, the last paragraph confuses "insane" with "irrational." Any undergraduate policy analysis class will go over Adam Smith, free markets, and the concept of the rational actor. Then they will go over why the vast majority of human beings are not rational actors in many situations, or where individually rational behavior is irrational in aggregate (it is rational for an individual to utilize all available resources, it is irrational for a society as a whole to do so), or where behavior which is rational at the societal level is detrimental to the individual (paying taxes lowers an individual's resources, but increases the resources available to the society), and why this occurs. Irrational behavior is not necessarily insane behavior, and by contrast, insane individuals are not necessarily irrational.

I have studied RT and CT and I like a lot of the theory. I think counselors could use some of RT/CT and still buy into the DSM. Gerald Corey gives a very good explanation on RT and CT .

Galileo would not have been characterized as delusional, regardless of whether his theories were correct. It is not the opinion that demonstrates delusional thought, but the level of rational thought that leads to it.

Agreed,! Galilleo was prosecuted not because he was delusional but because he made too much sense (IMHO)


Many of them, such as Mark and David Geier, are not even psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, or even endocrinologists or specialists in internal medicine. The ones pushing chelation or even chemical castration as a cure for autism

Chemical castration :eek: YOWIE rather drastic?


***Quote from Source
Anti-psychiatry refers to approaches which fundamentally challenge the theory or practice of mainstream psychiatry in general, and biological psychiatry in particular. Anti-psychiatric criticisms of mainstream psychiatry include that it uses medical concepts and tools inappropriately, that it treats patients against their will or inappropriately dominates other approaches to mental health, that its medical and ethical integrity are compromised by its financial and professional links with pharmaceutical companies, and that it uses a system of categorical diagnosis that is stigmatizing (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and is perceived by too many of its “patients” as demeaning and controlling.***End Quote

:confused: I read this stuff and go wtfry????

The fact that a competent adult has the right to refuse all treatment psychiatric or other wise would go a long way to falsifying this claim first rattle out of the box. It isn’t all that easy to show incompetence either we have Alzheimer’s patients looking to feed the chickens in the middle of a health care facility during meal times. They cannot have medications or treatments forced upon them, because despite their obvious delusional state unless their behavior presents a danger to self or other they have the right to feed chicken in the middle of a health care facility and refuse medications as long as they do not become agitated (without provocation ) to be considered a danger. It takes a lot of paper work to justify forcing treatment on any one including but not limited to the delusional!

Although ADD is considered an impairment and many of the symptoms can be either diminished or enhanced by environment the actual traits do not really change necessarily only the contrast changes. An example of this is my hyperactivity. I can function pretty well with my hyperactivity when I am in high gear. . . .like when I have to pass medications my medications can wear off and neither me nor any one else is the wiser because I have to move rapid fire my bounciness isn’t noticeable because the non-ADDer passing medication right next to me is doing the same thing. However when it comes to sitting down and doing paper work then my ADD become very apparent because I have a hard time sitting down long enough to write I keep getting distracted and moving about This is also when I notice the missed dose of Adderall.

My hyperactivity hasn’t changed the environment has. Where rapid fire action may actually cover up my hyperactivity. . . . when physical demands are high. (it does help I am accurate with medication ) however when the need to sit arise then my ADHD sticks out like a sore thumb because the non-ADDer is able to sit down and write where I am not! This is what I mean a when I see ADD as a contextual enhanced disorder the environment doesn’t create the ADD it often simply determines how noticeable it is.

My dyslexia isn’t a problem when doing the laundry, bathing the dog, however while writing this post it becomes undeniably noticeable. (and moderately annoying at present)


I think counselors could use some of RT/CT and still buy into the DSM.

I do not believe in an all or nothing proposition either. I fail to see why one can't treat ADD by taking medications and improving sleep habits (which reminds me I should be in bed) as well as diet and exercise. To me eliminating sugar can't do any thing but help ADD because it helps the general health of the entire person by improving nutrition however there is little evidence diet is the cause of ADD. It is late I hope I am making sense.

The DSM has a list of symptoms but rarely is every patient expected to display them all. DSM is just a guide so mental health professionals have a common reference and standardized diagnostic out line in an effort to enhance objectivity thus rely less on subjective opinion which can vary greatly from individual to individual. I guess I simply do not fully understand the big objection to the DSM maybe because of my own professional perspective.

Although an expansion of your idea would more than likely prove interesting as I have found you to have good rational behind your statements.

Nite-Nite Well good moring to most . . . . .evening shift a contexual disorder in itself!

... philosophers like Foucault ... "mental illness" are indeterminate and reflect the hierarchical structures of the societies from which they emerge ... ADDF thread::ADD,IQ #20 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=330603&postcount=20)
"The linear world of *not* ADD clings to physical hierarchy.
The nonlinear world of ADD predicates on a hierarchical structure of mind - and does not cling on so dearly (if at all) - to physical hierarchy." SB...

...contexual disorder...SB...

“Although an expansion of your idea would more than likely prove interesting as I have found you to have good rational behind your statements. “

<o:p></o:p>None of this is really my idea, but I can provide an ‘expansion’:


My friend let me borrow his book ‘Reality Therapy’ ©1989 and I figured I'd do a little research before I started reading it. I did a search on Wikipedia and found the first two links I provided along with a ‘loosely’ related link to ‘anti psychiatry’. The reality therapy / choice theory is not ‘directly’ related to anti-psychiatry and I'm sure Glasser would go out of his way to avoid being considered part of an 'anti psychiatric’ movement. I suppose the only real reason I stuck that little tidbit in there was to generate more responses to my post. I promise you that this happened on a strictly sub conscious level and I had no idea what was going on. *grins*



I should also note, incase anyone is getting the wrong idea here; I have come here to learn, not to teach. If asked, I try to answer questions with questions (if you can call that answering them at all). I believe a question is a general direction in which we choose to look, an answer ‘may-be’ what we find here but answers are only true for the moment – A question is forever.




So there you have it, I’m just researching the topic of my book to see if it is a worth-while read. I suppose I could have been clearer but I didn't think about it, imagine that. :-)


Will this save my reputation in your eyes Meadd823??? *grins*


My reputation in real life is already shot, this forum is all I have left. :-)

*playing the proverbial devil's advocate*. I am familiar with Glasser's Choice Theory, among other similar theories and while I could go on and on in regards to their viability, I will simply point out that they are theories, not fact. At the same time, as a psychotherapist (degreed and all), and having been in this business (and I assure you, it IS a business) for 15+ years, I caution anyone who thinks that titles such as psychiatrist/psychologist/therapist/PhD,etc. somehow provide credibility to any theory. God knows, I worked on enough research studies (wrote them too) to realize just how easily it is to justify any argument. Its an art form really; I could have easily argued the opposing argument/theory and been reviewed and published. That said, my personal inclination has always been to look at theories objectively and then to extract from them the things that simply "make sense". You don't need a degree to know when something is way off base. Still, we also have a tendency to completely discount even a portion of any theory if we are put off by the nature of its face value to us. My personal opinion on Glasser's theory is that it is an extension of the "chicken and egg" argument and no, I don't completely discount that possibility. Keep in mind that medicine, even at this stage of evolution, cannot explain the mechanism of antidepressants. They will flat out tell you "we don't know how this works, we only know that it does". That scares me, not because of the explicit implications of doling out medications blindly, but because just as we easily discount a theoretical standpoint that doesn't make sense immediately, we just as easily accept the administration of medications that "do something". Chicken and egg; when we become depressed, was it due to biochemical changes (theory, bear with me and I will explain) or did we ourselves choose a mindset that caused those biochemical changes. Can we cause biochemical changes in ourselves? Yep, we can. Do we make choices which elicit those changes or do the changes occur and then our psyche reacts? I will add that a neuropsychologist once explained to me that the same structural changes which are explained by medicine as indicative of schizophrenia were only studied using individuals who received a certain antipsychotic medication. No one who hadn't received the medication but who showed symptomology of schizophrenia was included. Are we certain then that the brain structure was different because of the schizophrenia? Again, i'm long winded. My point is simply to tell you to read cautiously and if you want to know more about a theory/research study, please don't rely on Google for your search. There is so much more information in the studies themselves and its easier to actually see the rationale behind the research and behind the theory and also to see the errors in judgement and the "sins of omission" that we are not granted access to often enough.

Do we make choices which elicit those changes or do the changes occur and then our psyche reacts?
An *excellent* post.
Your idea is encapsulated within Tammy's observation of her 'brain having a mind of its own.'

The latter for me also - without a shadow of a doubt.
I described the conscious mind as the commentator (in a post on an earlier thread) - a commentator which has long since forgotten that its role is as observer and interpreter but not in defining the {live action} *itself.*

ADDF Thread::Metamind #96 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=273660&postcount=96)

To make this idea hang together a little more comfortably rather like that grey linen jacket you are just so going to have, we need to add in the idea of conscious thought being subservient to sub-conscious thought, so a picture ...

... a society in which people cannot attend the big game
... a commentator who provides a 30 second intro and a 30 second post-match summary, around several hours of gameplay
... a society which begins to miss the point of what the game represents and instead becomes attracted to hearing only the result
... a society losing touch with the fact that the rain-sodden bedraggled reporter is reporting on, and providing a far far far less vibrant view of the game than might be achieved through watching the game, but of course, not through any fault on the commentator's behalf ... 1 minute is all that he's allowed
... and finally a society for which the game is nothing beyond the description offered in that 1 minute, the commentator is believed to be describing the actual game; the commentator becomes the big jalapeno.

So ... conscious thought as the commentator.
So - changes occur - our conscious mind makes a note of them and informs us (in due course) - and all too often takes the credit for a choice in which its preference has not been consciously requested - the conscious mind is merely a witless witness in most affairs of state and yet insists on being addressed as King ...
... ... ... -silly mind!-
... ... ... but if it's any consolation - life's better as a pauper - one needn't worry about hogs blood stains on one's satin velvet finery.

... :-) ...

SB.

Gaining conscious access to previously unreachable subconscious supportive processes - subconscious supportive processes supporting cognition - is also a component of ADD. I'll dig out a link from ADDF if you'd like - though I do believe that this idea is explored in one of two of my favourite threads {Stabile vs Ratey and ?Genetics of ADD? {pushed into private by Stanzen} which have been taken off the publically accessible site.

buffalopc7 & SB

Thank you for both your replies,

I had almost forgotten about this thread.

Btw: I started reading the book already.

Great! Let us know your thoughts about the book!