Any opinions on Glasser's or Ford's adaptation (!) of Perceptual Control
Theory for psychotherapeutic purposes (!)?
Nando
PS: I'm a Psycho Logist
[From Bill Powers (970804.0742)]
Nando (970803) --
Any opinions on Glasser's or Ford's adaptation (!) of Perceptual Control
Theory for psychotherapeutic purposes (!)?
I think both approaches have the goal of encouraging people to take control
of their own lives and cease to think that their problems will be solved by
changing others. Of the two, Ford's approach is, in my opinion, more
consciously (and far more knowledgeably) tied to the principles of PCT,
although he uses many of the basic techniques taught by Glasser over the
years.
Glasser has recently repudiated PCT as his underlying theory, and now
promotes something he calls "choice theory."
Techniques generally don't impress me. What counts for me is whether the
approach is basically non-coercive and aimed at helping a person understand
what is going on, so as to become independent of the therapist. I think
Ford's attitudes encourage this kind of result more than Glasser's do,
because he is less inclined to pigeonhole people and takes a less
prescriptive approach.
My own interests in psychotherapy are concerned more with what makes any
method work. They all seem to be helpful to some people, even a majority,
although few of them, as practiced (to my knowledge), have much to do with
any underlying theory of human nature. In behavior-mod therapies, for
example, practitioners have learned to be careful to ask permission of the
patient and discuss the patient's goals before "controlling the patient's
behavior" -- steps that have little theoretical justification in that
field. This is, however, similar to what other approaches do.
Kubie said long ago that successful psychotherapists all converge on very
similar practices, I would say simply because they are faced every day with
experimental tests of their beliefs. A successful psychotherapist is one
who would prefer that patients and clients get better than that theories be
vindicated. I would hope that any therapist trying to apply the principles
of PCT would take a similar attitude.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Gregg Wierzbicki (970805.1000)]
Bill Powers (970804.0742)
Nando (970803) --
Any opinions on Glasser's or Ford's adaptation (!) of Perceptual Control
Theory for psychotherapeutic purposes (!)?
Glasser has recently repudiated PCT as his underlying theory, and now
promotes something he calls "choice theory."
In a conversation with Glasser about a year ago I learned that he suspected
PCT would likely prove to be more theoretically sound than his personal
version of Control Theory. I came to understand that his reasons for moving
away from the term 'control theory' while coming to prefer the term 'choice
theory' were associated with the inumerable obstacles inherent in the
public's nearly constant misunderstanding of the science of control and their
apparent complete lack of interest in developing an improved theoretical
foundation on the subject. Further, I came to understand he felt his
objectives as a 'therapeutic practitioner' (not so much a 'control theory
scientist') would likely not be well served by continuing to disturb his
clientele's perception of their lack of a sound theoretical understanding of
control. I gather he has grown a bit weary after years of struggling to
overcome his clients' inherent resistance to upgrading their understanding of
control theory. I think he merely renamed his approach, while changing
little else, as a means of diminishing early misunderstandings and obstacles
to progress.
Gregg
[From Bill Powers (970805.1245MDT)]
Gregg Wierzbicki (970805.1000)--
In a conversation with Glasser about a year ago I learned that he suspected
PCT would likely prove to be more theoretically sound than his personal
version of Control Theory. ...
I gather he has grown a bit weary after years of struggling to
overcome his clients' inherent resistance to upgrading their understanding of
control theory. I think he merely renamed his approach, while changing
little else, as a means of diminishing early misunderstandings and obstacles
to progress.
An interesting view of Glasser's thinking. Of course it's very different
from the view held by those who felt his switch was arbitrary and
dictatorial. There are many sides to the man -- as is true of everyone. And
of course many interpretations of his behavior.
My own view, based on a rather limited experience of Glasser directly, is
that he underestimates the intelligence and abilities of his followers.
When you try to describe PCT in terms that are too deliberately dumbed
down, I think you actually make it harder to understand. The reason is that
the images and analogies that seem simple and familiar are actually none
too clear in themselves. Ideas that were clear and distinct become fuzzed
together, and the analogies, being expressed in simple but vague
generalities, raise more questions than they answer. People think they are
understanding you because they know all the words and recognize the
analogies -- but you are, by relying on that very familiarity, failing to
surprise them, so they aren't learning anything new.
Perhaps just as important, I feel that Glasser has taken on the typical
guru role: he provides the wisdom, and it's up to his followers to learn
it. I've seen him lecturing to his own people only twice, but both times he
sat by himself in the middle of the floor on a stool and told them how
things are. There was no discussion, there were no questions other than
those aimed at making sure the listener had got it right. I didn't get any
sense of Glasser trying to solve problems _with_ the people who were there.
His listeners seemed awfully docile to me -- at least compared with MY
listeners in the CSG!
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (970805.1220)]
Gregg Wierzbicki (970805.1000) --
I think he [Glasser] merely renamed his approach, while
changing little else, as a means of diminishing early
misunderstandings and obstacles to progress.
Progress toward what? Toward understanding purposeful behavior
(control) or progress toward controlling his own perceptions
of fame and fortune.
If I ever make a list of PCT slime (which would be available
by credit card access from my website;-)) I have a feeling that
Glasser would have no trouble making the cut.
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken