Intellectual property

[From Rick Marken (2007.10.01.0930)]

Hi Boris

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
color codes.

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
piles.

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.:wink:

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

Hi Richard,

glad you gave good answers. In some points they made me laugh. You have
sence of humor. :))

But I didn't mean the resemblance in levels or MOL... There something else
that's disturbing me. The whole idea. I think that Glasser is trying to
bring his theory as much as close to PCT diagram.

I'll try to present this with common terms used in PCT and "Choice Theory"
not sequentialy, only for representation of differences :

PCT : purposefull behavior (goal-directed) -------- intrinsic errors
--------- reorganization ------ goals -------- comparison ----------- error
--------- action

Glasser : purposefull behavior ------- Maslow needs (motivation) ---------
reorganization ------- world of quality --------- comparison --------
behavior ------- frustration signal

The main point of Glassers theory is I think that people can choose their
behavior in relation to success in satisfying their needs. They can alter
behavior with reorganisation till they reach World of quality. And from
outside (observer) this might even work. It seems like behavior is
purposefull - needs driven (or even genetic driven). What do people care
about terms. The most important for them is I think that they can have
influence on their lives with changing their minds and behavior. That what
can be observed.

I think the problem is that for ordinary people who are used to old
psychology Glassers model gives enough answers. They obviously don't need
more scientific explanation and they don't care if the model is not working
in real life. I think the most important is that it's working in their minds.

Some explanation of terms from Glassers institute :
1. One of Dr. Glasser�s major premises is that �All behavior is purposeful.�
That is ALL of our behavior is our best attempt at the time, given the
resources at our disposal (knowledge, skills, etc.) to meet one or more of
our basic human needs, needs which evolved over time and have become part of
our genetic structure. These needs are the general motivation for
everything we do. Another way of putting it is all of our behavior is an
attempt at making the real world conform to the pictures in our Quality World.
2. Although we share the same basic human needs, we differ in the amount of
each need we require. The William Glasser Institute, developed an activity
to help people understand their own needs profile, and determine to what
degree they were successful at satisfying their needs
3. The Comparing Place describes a process that happens continuously in the
brain. As we experience life, we are constantly comparing what we want (our
Quality World pictures) with what we�ve got (our Perceived World). When the
two match fairly well, we feel good. When there is a mismatch, as there
probably was when you read the sentence above, you feel a degree of
frustration, depending on how important the Quality World picture is to you.
That frustration signal, as Glasser terms it, is felt as an urge to behave
in a way that will help us get more of what we want.
4. Glasser likens the Comparing Place to a set of scales. When your scales
are in balance, when what you want is what you have, you continue to do what
you�ve been doing. When your scales get out of balance, you feel the
frustration signal, the urge to behave
5. If we do not have an organized behavior immediately available, or
organized behaviors that have worked in the past are not working in the
current situation, we are capable of figuring out new behaviors. Glasser
terms this process reorganizing; this is our creativity, which is always
going on, whether we decide to use it or not

I know you are right Richard that this is not even close to PCT, but I see
the problem, that Glasser is trying to spread the idea of purposefull
behavior on genetic structure thus closing to PCT. I think he is slowly
building the diagram of PCT with another words. And I think the ordinary
people will never be able to see the difference.

I think that with another terms Glasser is still spreading the basic idea of
PCT.

Best,

Boris

[From Erling Jorgensen (2007.10.02 1730 EDT)

Boris Hartman (Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:05:38 -0500)

Hello Boris,
I am not much of a fan of William Glasser & his approach to therapy,
but three observations come to mind of what I understand about him.

First of all, he has spent most of his professional career proposing
an alternative to notions of "mental illness" & some of the dominant
strains of therapy. In doing so, he came across Bill Powers'
writings on perceptual control theory, which have probably improved
Glasser's formulations of what was once called Reality Therapy, then
for a while Control Theory, & now Choice Theory. [It is interesting
that one blurb for Glasser's 1999 book states: "Dr. Glasser offers
choIce theory, a non- controlling psychology that gives us the
freedom to sustain the relationships that lead to healthy,
productive lives..." Notice the use of the term "non-controlling",
an indication of the public relations problem raised by that term
"control."]

So, yes, Glasser has been influenced by Powers' ideas, & to that
extent he probably has a stronger product to promote.

The second observation is that he is indeed a promoter. He is a
popularizer of certain ideas in counseling & education. So his
concerns are not primarily theoretical or scientific. I view his
work as essentially a map of a map of a map of a territory. He
gives the equivalent of a verbal description of a freehand map
of a more detailed road map of the way to get to the hotel out by
the airport.

What this means is that he feels quite free to rename & insert
concepts at will, if he believes that will convey his overall
approach better.

A third observation, from what I've heard from some that have been
very into his approach, is that Glasser seems quite keen to protect
& promote his proprietary empire. What this would suggest is that
he _has_ to change the language, to make it more his own, so that
his books & training seminars can sell.

With those observations as backdrop, I wanted to comment on a few
of the points you raise in your post.

In point #3, you note of Glasser's terms:

As we experience life, we are constantly comparing what we want
(our Quality World pictures) with what we�ve got (our Perceived
World). When the two match fairly well, we feel good. When there
is a mismatch, as there probably was when you read the sentence
above, you feel a degree of frustration, depending on how important
the Quality World picture is to you. That frustration signal, as
Glasser terms it, is felt as an urge to behave in a way that will
help us get more of what we want.

This actually is not that bad a description of the operation of
a PCT control loop. He has used his own terms for each component
of the loop, & he gives perceived frustration a motivational impetus
of its own (which is different than Bill's proposals about emotion),
but in other respects it is quite close to a PCT formulation.

Specifically, "Quality World" is his term for reference signals.
"Perceived World" is his term for perceptual signals. "Comparing
Place" (used by you in an earlier sentence) is his term for the
comparator. "Frustration signal" is his term for error signal.
And in the description of yours above, he even gets it right that
it is the consequences of behavior that matter -- i.e., "to behave
in a way that will help us get more of what we want." Elsewhere
he veers into the non-PCT notion of "controlling behaviors", rather
than the results of behaviors. I can't tell if those instances are
simply a rhetorical shorthand device, or if he cannot tell the
difference. Nor is the conceptual issue resolved by Glasser's
expansion of behavior into what he likes to call "Total Behavior,"
incorporating thinking, acting, feeling, & physiology. That simply
throws a lot of things into the same black box, leaving it with
less explanatory power.

A different black box is the one Glasser calls our "basic needs,"
described in your post as --

our basic human needs, needs which evolved over time and have
become part of our genetic structure.

This seems to be his replacement for the "intrinsic variables" of
Powers' PCT model. I agree with you that Glasser seems to throw in
a lot of Maslow at this point. It seems he conflates the upper
(learned) levels of a PCT hierarchy with the (unlearned) genetic
& developmental basis of intrinsic physiological requirements. And
I think his notion suffers from piling too much together into one
non-explanatory (i.e., dormative) principle of "needs." But remember,
these are just Glasser's verbal labels on a sketchy therapeutic map
of a more scientifically rigorous (PCT) map of how humans operate.

A further fuzzy area, in my opinion, is what he has done with the
notion of "reorganization." As you describe his notions --

If we do not have an organized behavior immediately available, or
organized behaviors that have worked in the past are not working
in the current situation, we are capable of figuring out new
behaviors. Glasser terms this process reorganizing; this is our
creativity,

This seems to make the process way too voluntary, (not surprising,
given his investment in a therapy of "choice.") But it robs --
or simply does not understand -- the explanatory power of
selectively slowing the pace of a random process, as a way of
differentially retaining the results. The e-coli model of
reorganization is surprisingly elegant & robust. I don't believe
Glasser really trusts that such a process can achieve very much,
because he seems so intent on making it a directed form of
reorganization that we can figure out with our creativity.

Anyway, these are some of the drawbacks I see with Glasser's
approach. I appreciate your raising the issues for our
consideration.

All the best,
Erling

Boris Hartman (Tue, 2 Oct
2007 01:05:38 -0500)

Hello Boris,

I am not much of a fan of William Glasser & his approach to therapy,

but three observations come to mind of what I understand about him.
[From Bill Powers (2007.10.03.0920 MDT)]

Erling Jorgensen (2007.10.02 1730 EDT) –

I do enjoy your essays, Erling. I think you understand Glasser very well.
I don’t think we need to worry about his “stealing PCT” or
anything like that. He’s had to adopt a lot of PCT stuff just because
people keep asking him questions about it. That’s all right, isn’t
it?

Best,

Bill P.

Hello Erling,

very nice writing, helpful, deep. I feel like we share the same thoughts.
Wonderfull feeling...:))

All the best to you,

Boris