[From Rick Marken (2007.10.01.0930)]
I'm aksing about these terms baecause they are widely spreading in "Choice
Theory" and my oppinion is that Glasser is building in background "new
theory" which for my taste ressembles to much on PCT principles and nobody
recognize Bill as an author. Of course as I don't know much about past
events, I could be wrong. So I asked my PCT familiy :))
Well, as you note, Glasser did once have a strong interest in PCT but
abandoned it for some reason. I don't really know why. I think it had
to do with him not wanting to give credit (or a share of profits) to
Powers for the idea.
In his first book "Control theory", Glasser published that with help of
theoretical Book of William T. Powers : "Behaviour : The control of
perception" he got acquainted with Control Theory and was enthusiastic about
possibilities of her use in lifting the quality of life. And he wrote, that
his book is an attempt to transfer these possibilities to praktice. So there
isn't any doubt for public about who is the author as for me never was. So I
also don't doubt about that "Chioce Theory" is just Part 2 of "Control
Theory". So base is still PCT.
Actually, Glasser's first book based on Control Theory was "Stations
of the Mind". I think "Choice Theory" is, indeed, what Glasser
developed after abandoning PCT. From what I've seen of it it's not
very much like PCT at all. He might have kept some PCT terms but I
don't think Choice Theory has much to do with PCT anymore.
But as I lately spoke to my past friends in RT, I got the impression that
Control Theory is changing to "Choice Theory" with some principles of PCT
which are claimed to be Glassers.
Glasser might have stolen some stuff from PCT but I don't think it was
anything important. It's sort of like someone stealing some of the
secrets to building an A bomb and the secrets stolen were the wiring
I'm confused. I look to Croatia and Slovenian Glasser institut and I made a
complaint about what's going on. I warned them that they should be exact
about what is what and whose in whose. I got an answer that Glasser thinks
that some aspects of PCT can be explained in a more simple way (!?) and that
is necessary for the clients as it serves as therapeutical means.
I'd say let it go. Glasser is irrelevant to any serious thinking about
human nature. Let him sit like Scrooge MacDuck on his ill-gotten money
I remember also Bill did a very correct thing. He pointed out what was Ashby
idea. And that is fair.
That would be nice but I don't think Glasser is that kind of guy. Let
him be. Glasser is to psychology as Brittany Spears is to music.
Expecting Glasser to be able to teach Powers is like expecting
Brittany Spears to be able to sing Dylan (I've never heard Ms. SPears
sing so that's my impression just based on appearances).
I would be glad if you can point out some previous disccusions or your
oppinion what will show me more exactly what Glasser knew before he "came to
PCT". The presumption is of course that I'm not wrong about what's happening.
I think you are right about what is happening. But I don't think
Glasser is really stealing much of value from PCT. In fact, I would
rather the Glasser-PCT link were ignored since what Glasser is
teaching now has nothing to do with PCT. If Glasser were talking about
levels of control, conflict and the method of levels then I would get
on him and his people about disclosing the source of these ideas. But
when he's talking about the crud that he does talk about -- choosing
behaviors, basic needs, whatever -- who cares? It's like getting mad
at Fox Noise (an American right wing propaganda station masquerading
as a "News" channel). It's just people trying to make a living.
Richard S. Marken PhD