2. bloodnfire - Jan. 3, 1999 - 11:24 PM PT
Thanks for the introduction, Irv., and for honoring me by allowing me to host this thread.....
"Suppose you could ask all the people in the world who are not hungry, sick or poor, people who seem to have a lot to live for, to give you an honest answer to the question, "How are you?", Millions would say "I'm miserable".
If asked why, almost all of them would blame someone else for their misery---lovers, wives, husbands, exes, children, parents, teachers, students, or people they work with. There is hardly a person alive who hasn't been heard saying ....'You're driving me crazy....That really upsets me...Don't you have any consideration for how I feel ?....You make me so mad, I can't see straight'. It never crosses their mind that they are choosing the misery they are complaining about".
That's how Dr. William Glasser opens the first chapter of his book which we start discussing today. He continues...
"Choice theory explains that, for all practical purposes, we choose EVERYTHING we do, including the misery we feel. Other people can neither make us miserable nor make us happy. All we can get from them or give to them is information. But by itself, information cannot make us *do* or *feel* anything. It goes into our brains, where we process it, and then decide what to do".
How does that strike you ? Let the fun begin, and I'll check in every morning in the wee hours before I go to work, and then in the evening when I get home. Thanks in advance for any and all input. I'll post a few of Dr. Glasser's radical ideas from the 'Chapter of the Week' [or 'The Day' depending on the response], and welcome your reaction. Hope we all find the discussion edifying and helpful in our lives.
3. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 7:50 AM PT
A personal observation before the actual reading: I've been choosing not to get particularly upset over anything lately in daily living, and am slowly convincing the boyfriend to do the same. It works wonders. Yesterday, driving to a small party dinner party at his boss's house, we got stuck for an hour in traffic because of flooding. I used the extra time to listen to an oldies station and a little classical, after abandoning the traffic reports, which would not tell me anything I didn't already know. We arrived just a short while after the other couple, and had a nice evening.
I think that in large measure choice theory may just be a repackaging of positive thinking, or even the late Dr. Maxwell Maltz's "Psychocybernetics" (still in print), which always were pretty good ways to deal with life.
4. jgeffert - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:26 AM PT
Question. Years ago while treating a couple in therapy I heard my male patient quote Dr. Glasser as his authority when telling me his wife should not be upset at his revelation of an affair. That she was "choosing" to be upset and he had just chosen to tell the truth. I had great difficulty comprehending that a colleague wanted me to tell my "wife" that she was being irrational while in tears about the disrespect shown by her husband. I was more confused over his lack of compassion and used that as my starting point to help put this marriage into recovery mode. Might it be that "Reality Therapy" is just a way to excuse the perpetrator of hurtful and harmful behaviors and the person on the receiving end of these behaviors as the one responsible for the detrimental effects? ALL answers are wanted and will be appreciated. Doccay
5. jexster - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:30 AM PT
I have not read the book but will follow the thread to see whether its worth it.
At first blush, the title and brief intros here are exactly what my therapist has been focusing on for more years than I care to tell you the number of.
Leaves me to wonder, Do I have a radical therapist or are Glasser's Ideas, worthy though they may be, really that radical?
6. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:37 AM PT
Or perhaps it was just a misuse of choice theory. After all, if one is injured by another in society through violence or fraud, we expect either the State or the individual to gain some restitution, not to excuse the criminal.
I think there is a difference between reacting emotionally to an upsetting event, such as a cheating spouse, and hanging on to that hurt indefinetly, when a better action *might* have been divorce; after all, if the wife could no longer love the husband following his transgression, perhaps she should have left him.
If the marriage was worth saving, then hanging onto the hurt (when a more suitable reaction might be just to look at one's spouse as a weakling) is ultimately injuring oneself for no particular good reason, possibly. It has been said that Clinton did not humiliate Hillary, he humiliated himself.
7. ChristinO - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:41 AM PT
Jgeffert,
Would Glasser have actually sided with the husband, though? Would he have looked that woman in the eye and said "You don't have any reason to be upset you just want to be upset"?
Now, if the woman were to spend the rest of her life in a bathrobe and never leave the house and gain 600 pounds then I'd say that she let things get out of control, but to be upset over being betrayed is only reasonable.
A man who would cheat on his wife to begin with has already got some issues and it seems more likely to me that he took a single grain of psychological theory and tried to make a loaf of bread out of it.
I spent quite a while in a relationship where I was told things "Not to hurt your feelings but for your own good". The truth of the matter was that it WAS to hurt my feelings and it was NOT for my own good but to alleviate someone else's feelings of guilt. There's a difference between tough love and emotional sadism.
I'm no fan of melodrama and poor-me-ism. I don't find great glamour in the tortured soul. There is quite a bit to be said for taking responsibility for your own life and emotions, but I can't imagine anyone seriously promoting the idea that we are SOLELY responsible for how we feel as if we were alone on the planet or had no interaction with others.
Perhaps I should read the book and get back to this.
8. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:55 AM PT
"Might it be that "Reality Therapy" is just a way to excuse the
perpetrator of hurtful and harmful behaviors and the person on the
receiving end of these behaviors as the one responsible for the
detrimental effects?"
Yes, and I can't tell you how many times, in my youth, I heard PRECISELY the sort of thing you describe the wayward husband intoning from philandering boyfriends. I did not require therapy to ditch them, nor any justification for wanting to "control" them: what I wanted was justification enough for my leaving, just as what they wanted was justification enough for their wanting me to hang around on their terms.
I wonder how Dr. Gasbag, whose "new" theory has been "radical" and espoused by one idiot after another since at least the mid 1960s, distinguishes between purely "emotional" suffering and suffering inflicted via physical harm. Or legitimate emotional distress and poor emotional "choices". For istance, if the Khmer Rouge works my parents to their deaths for the glory of Communism, and yet I manage to come up with 3 squares a day, shelter, and a reasonable standard of living, should I simply "choose" an emotional reaction to Pol Pot that does not include despair, anger, rage, etc.?
Jexster: get rid of your quack therapist before (s)he convinces you that your proper role in life is to be disengaged from life's conflicts and to pretend not to feel things it's legitimate to feel. Then go find yourself something useful to do with yourself and, when you get around to it, decide three things:
1. You're too old to take any more shit willingly.
2. You're strong enough to endure most routine shit anyway, and smart enough to know exactly how long you really have to.
3. You have the right to call things as you see them, and the integrity to keep one eye on yourself.
9. PsychProf - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
If we live in a personal vacuum w/o values or history, we can be free agents to exercise "choice" at any point in time. I guess I am disqualified.
10. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:59 AM PT
I think most therapists nowadays would say you have to feel, to experience your emotions, and then make an effort to transcend the negative ones so that they do you no harm.
11. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:01 AM PT
Ronski,
What is a "negative" emotion?
12. PsychProf - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:02 AM PT
Seg...hopefully one might try to see the harm he/she has done to others...
13. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:03 AM PT
Seguine,
Eating your heart out; feeling worthless or inferior; anger. For starters.
14. jgeffert - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
It is always great to have one's own views affirmed. I didn't appreciate this crappola in the early '80's anymore than I do now. It promotes isolationism and self-blame which causes those "neuro's" to need to flee or fight. Guess which one usually wins out? Thanks for this thread and all of you participating. Doccay
15. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:06 AM PT
"If we live in a personal vacuum w/o values or history, we can be free
agents to exercise "choice" at any point in time."
Yes, exactly--free like robots. The question is, who *really* does the programming? The robots? Or William Glasser & like-minded zombie masters?
16. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
Ronski on "negative emotions": "Eating your heart out; feeling worthless or inferior; anger. For starters."
Okay. Let's say you're right and each of these emotions is "negative" and needs to be done away with before you can be happy.
Anger: do you have something, in theory, to be angry about? If so, why shouldn't you make constructive use of your anger to change it, if possible? And if it can't be changed, what makes you think you will necessarily be angry indefinitely?
Feelings of worthlessness or inferiority: What did you do, kill someone? I.e., *are* you worthless or inferior? Probably not. So wouldn't it be wise to compare your lousy feelings, if you had them, to objective reality in order to give yourself some *basis* for feeling differently? Wouldn't it be intelligent to find yourself a physician who will prescribe antidepressants if it turns out you have an organic inability to feel emotions appropriate to what appears to be objective reality?
If you had a broken leg, would it be a good idea to try to talk yourself out of it, or would you be better off with a cast and some followup PT in how to walk?
Eating your heart out: What's that? Obsessive self-pity? Jealousy? Grief?
If "eating your heart out" is negative, what is joy at the funeral of your best friend? Love and loyalty directed at Jeffry Dahmer? Contentment and happiness with being an asshole?
Do you get my point that emotions can be considered "negative" only in context?
17. ChristinO - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:35 AM PT
Okay, after reading the posts of people who have apparently read Glasser I think I'll skip him. If he's all about how "I didn't hurt you. You just don't take responsibility for your emotions" then he's an idiot. I spent too many years wondering what I'd done to provoke malice in others and too much time rationalizing their behavior so that I could take the blame for feeling lousy when somebody screwed me over. It's a load of crap and if you subscribe to it there is no end of people who are willing to take advantage of you and let you feel lousy so that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.
18. PsychProf - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
"But by itself, information cannot
make us *do* or *feel* anything. It goes into
our brains, where we process it, and then
decide what to do".
How would you live with another who actually believed this? One of the ways we feel human is to share a set of emotions based upon the common perception of an event. The perception itself is the result of similar history and values. The ability to predict the "feeling" causes closeness and empathy. What if they "chose" only on the basis of current need and situation...Christopher Lasch lives!!!!
19. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
Seguine,
I agree with you. To transcend negative emotions, you confront them and deal with them in a constructive way; but you don't hang on to them, which, unfortunately, some people are known to do because of secondary gains (sympathy) or a fear of being well.
20. PsychProf - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
Choose to be happy, take a soma, as Huxley would say.
21. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Well, eventually. After working things out, a martini can be nice.
22. PsychProf - Jan. 4, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT
Sorry Ronski...sarcasm was intended. I WANT us to be unhappy...it is a agent for change.
23. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
I was taught that the resonance in the Shakespearean quote comes from the *response* to Miranda's, "Oh brave new world, that hath such wondrous creatures in it."
Prospero:"'Tis new to thee."
24. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:24 PM PT
"I agree with you. To transcend negative emotions, you confront them and deal with them in a constructive way; but you don't hang on to them, which, unfortunately, some people are known to do because of secondary gains (sympathy) or a fear of being well."
But I'm not sure I agree with *you*. Emotions in themselves are not "positive" or "negative"--unless what you mean by "negative" is 'painful'. As for "hanging onto" emotions...well, I'm not convinced most unhappy people really do that, and those who do in order to garner sympathy generally just need to be spanked.
Nor do I think anyone fears being well.
Sure, there are people whose emotional development stops at or before adolescence, who are so accustomed to or desirous of life being soap-operatic that their expectation that it will be becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And there are people who fear becoming *someone else*--people for whom the loss of their sense of personal tragedy is equivalent to a loss of identity. But those things aren't quite about simply letting go of "negative" feelings, or embracing wellness instead of fearing it.
In fact, I think the 'need' for tragedy is largely a function of the desire to be significant, and the fear of becoming someone one isn't is actually kind of a good sign: it suggests that a neurotic person at least values her own probity.
Becoming significant in a mass-mediated world is becoming ever more difficult, I think; and in fact, no one really has any idea what constitutes true significance anymore anyway. But when we get a firm grip on the utter, true *insignificance* of many of our middle-class,
fin de siécle, 20th century personal 'tragedies', many of us must start to realize the fatuity of dwelling for too long on our losses and failings.
25. chloel - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:28 PM PT
New? Radical? So far Glasser looks like a bad rewrite of Epictetus.
26. ChristinO - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
Down with the drama-queens!
Right on!!
Okay, joking aside, I think you raise a very interesting point, Sequine. What does our Prozac Nation really mean? It's an issue I've been pondering for a number of years now.
Are we chemically different than we've ever been?----Assuming that we haven't mutated some strange way in the last 100 years then why are we having so many problems with depression and bi-polar disorders?
If we're not then what about our society has changed---I mean fundamentally not just surface changes----that has made our depressive leanings so much more apparent?
Did we used to just "grin and bear it"? One would expect that all the untreated depression of earlier ages would have resulted in higher suicide rates than today, but I don't think that's the case. I'm willing to bet money that our teen suicide rates are much higher than they were 100 years ago.
What have we done to ourselves?
27. Ronski - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:55 PM PT
Seguine,
I do think that emotions can be negative, witness the effects of stress on health, the immune system in particular. And certainly painful emotions are considered negative by most people.
And people fearing becoming well and fearing being someone new are similar things. These folks like to stick with the familiar. I also think they fear success and individualization, believing at some profound level that they are making a parent of childhood memory unhappy by doing so.
I don't think that getting well merely means letting go; I think it entails a more complicated process of working through such feelings.
28. thoughtful - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
Speaking from total ignorance as I've never read Glasser (and ignorance has never stopped me from speaking }:-))I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.
If Glasser's point is that the woman whose husband dumped her can *choose* delight, then that is absurd. She was dealt a blow and has to somehow come to grips with it. While she has no choice in what happened, she can -- and in fact she must -- decide how to deal with it, mentally, emotionally, physically, economically, etc. Most likely it will include working through feelings of anger, betrayal, resentment, pain, etc.
If Glasser is referring to expecting someone to take responsibility for the *choices* they make and the *actions* they take, then this is appropriate. It's something we usually expect of adults. So, in this case, it would mean he'd expect the husband to recognize and take responsibility for the hurt he caused his wife as well as the other physical, emotional, economic, etc. consequences of the choice he made when he betrayed her.
29. thoughtful - Jan. 4, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
My brother is a prime example. He can't quit smoking because his wife won't. Not his fault, someone else's problem, he's a victim in all of this, and he'll blame her if he gets cancer. End of story. He no longer has to even try to quit. How convenient.
This is not a healthy way to be. If Glasser's prescription is to take responsibility for the choices we make, then it's a good one.
30. bloodnfire - Jan. 4, 1999 - 3:28 PM PT
Seguine.
"Yes, and I can't tell you how many times, in my youth, I heard PRECISELY the sort of thing you describe the wayward husband intoning from philandering boyfriends. I did not require therapy to ditch them, nor any justification for wanting to "control" them: what I wanted was justification enough for my leaving, just as what they wanted was justification enough for their wanting me to hang around on their terms."
You posted this in your Message #8 and really pleased jgeffert [Doccay] who responded...
"It is always great to have one's own views affirmed. I didn't appreciate this crappola in the early '80's anymore than I do now. It promotes isolationism and self-blame which causes those "neuro's" to need to flee or fight. Guess which one usually wins out? Thanks for this thread and all of you participating. Doccay"
Your 'patient', Doccay was an irresponsible, unkind, thoughtless boor, apparently, who had little concern for his wife's feelings. Rather like the attitude expressed by those philandering boyfriends, Seguine.
None of their nonsense represent Reality Therapy. On the contrary.
Reality Therapy involves an accepting of full responsibility for one's actions, and a kindness which the people you quoted totally lacked.
You were right to walk away Seguine, and your 'patient, Doccay, hopefully received from you the 'kick in the pants' he richly deserved.
Were you able to change his attitude, and help him become the husband his wife deserved ?
31. bloodnfire - Jan. 4, 1999 - 3:47 PM PT
Thoughtful. Your 28 and 29 are exactly right. 'Glasser's prescription *is* for someone to take responsibility for the *choices* they make and the *actions* they take'. As you say, It's something we usually expect of adults. My interest in hosting this thread is because I am one of a group of people responsible for 'facilitating' change in the hearts and behavior of youthful delinquents. We insist that they accept responsibility for all their choices, both positive and negative, from the moment they set foot on our Institute grounds. I want to hear all opinions because *coersion* when it comes to *making* people choose responsibly, doesn't work in the long haul. That's an important part of Glasser's work. I'll post a couple of quotes tonight for discussion tomorrow, in which he differentiates between "External Control Psychology" which has led to packed prisons and an irresponsible, 'Victim Syndrome' society, and "Internal Control Psychology" in which the individual is helped to learn to satisfy basic needs with positive choices. Choices which don't hurt those who love them, but bless.
And listen, if all this thread does is to persuade you that you are behaving as you should, and reinforce your sense of happiness, then it's worth participating isn't it? If, on the other hand, you are occasionally miserable, and find yourself making unwise choices, or if you know someone who is like that, perhaps you will learn something`. I expect to learn something, and I appreciate all your thoughts.
32. ChristinO - Jan. 4, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
Bloodnfire:
I'd be very interested to learn how to teach personal responsibility to those who never got it at home. I imagine that it's something that vast numbers of the population would benefit from.
While my mother certainly went a bit overboard with me-----I learned to try and take responsibility for things that were truly beyond my control-----I far prefer being overly critical of my own actions to being irresponsible.
I take pride in being responsible for my own choices even when I make bad choices. At least they are mine and I can do better in the future. Victimhood has never appealed to me, but I have known plenty of people (as I'm sure we all have) who are perfectly content to live their lives in "bad faith".
A lot of this seems to be simple Existentialism to me, but it's quite possible (nay, probable) that my understanding is lacking in this arena.
33. bloodnfire - Jan. 4, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
ChristinO. That's the way I feel too. Looking back over my life I have been very fortunate that those 'irresponsible' choices didn't get me into far hotter water than they occasionally did ! They were my choices, and I learrned from them how to make wiser ones.
Glasser gives an example of how "External Control Psychology" doesn't work. He says....
"Using the only psychology you know, you punish your teenage son for not doing his schoolwork by grounding him on wekends. But after you ground him, he still doesn't do his homework, and to make matters worse, you have a sullen teenager hanging around the house all weekend. After a month you begin to think: 'Why am I doing this over and over ? There must be a better way'".
As we get into Glasser's book, I'm sure there are some thoughts which will prove of value. Some you may dismiss. I try not to throw precious babies away with murky bathwater. :-)
I also appreciated your thoughts ChristinO regarding the difference between 'Tough Love' and 'Emotional Sadism'.
34. ChristinO - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:14 PM PT
Bloodnfire,
It seems that some sort of reward must be offered, some incentive for being a responsible person, for being a person of integrity, but I wonder how you instill that in someone who has been educated exactly opposite----to value victimhood and complaining.
The benefits seem obvious to me----people take you more seriously, you're more likely to have support when things really don't go your way, you gain the trust of others, more autonomy and authority. But to someone who doesn't already value these things, how do you instill a respect and desire for them?
When I was in high-school we had something called "In-School Suspension" or "ice" (ISS). I'm sure it developed because somebody finally noticed that it was stupid to send a kid home for a week for skipping school---duh, he didn't want to be at school anyway. The problem was that while "on ice" you had to do all your regular classwork----separate from your class and the lectures of course----but you received zeroes for all the work you did regardless of the merit of the work itself. I never could figure out what the incentive was to do the work or to do it well if one was to receive failing grades and rack up absences in class anyway.
How do you make someone want to learn or be repsonsible? It seems for each individual there must be a different key, a different motivation for adopting those behaviors.
35. RyckNelson - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:46 PM PT
What an excellent observation Christino. ISS as you've described it would appear to have been an abysmal failure.
I believe this choice theory must, as almost everything is, be tempered with reality. A lot of people will just never give a rat's a** what anyone thinks and how they should behave. It could happen to us in relationships with spouses, siblings, children, parents, and any other relationship. We've got to accept that not everyone will be satisfiable, agreeable, etc... and most of all not everyone will be competent to work on their own failings or as I hear more now, their "issues".
Well, this thread looks like it'll be an interesting read.
36. bloodnfire - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:08 PM PT
ChristinO. At the school, we start by suggesting that they accept responsibility for their behavior in six areas. Respect, Attitude, Participation, Leadership, Safety, and Staying in Supervision. The boys are 'awarded' up to three 'points' in each of those areas by each of the two supervisory 'shifts' who take care of them each day. 3 times six represents a maximum of 18 points for the shift, 36 for the day. At the end of the week the points are added up. All privileges ranging from their place in the dining hall to home furloughs depend on the points they earn.
The hope, [and the challenge], is to help them experience feeling really great while making responsible choices.
Glasser emphasizes that 'Involvement' is a vital prerequisite to helping people begin to change. Unless the individual feels that you care, all help is perceived, at least, as coercive. We have a formula on the wall in our lobby. R + R - R = R + R !
It stands for 'Rules, plus Regulations, minus Relationship equals Resentment and Rebelliousness'. Steven Covey once said..'A child doesn't care how much you know, until they know how much you care'. My understanding is that this element of truly caring is at the heart of Reality Therapy / Choice Theory. Anyone got any suggestions or comment ?
37. RyckNelson - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:16 PM PT
"My understanding is that this element of truly caring is at the heart of Reality Therapy / Choice Theory. Anyone got any suggestions or comment ?"
truly caring is an interpretation isn't it, I mean by the recipient. So if I "truly" care and the recipeint isn't accepting or perceiving that to be the case, how would this scenario be corrected?
To give some answer to my own scenario, I would assume (oh,oh) that the one who "thinks" they truly care must first agree with an honest assessment of the "caring level" they believe they're currently at.
Truly caring seems like a risk that a recipient must accept inorder to feel the caring from the giver. Hmmm....that's a tough one to state. Does anyone see what I'm trying to get at?
38. bloodnfire - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:23 PM PT
I do, Ryck, and you're right. Being 'truly cared for' and *feeling* truly cared for can be two different things. Young people aren't stupid, however, and they catch on very quickly whether there is sincerity in caring. What a person 'is' speaks more loudly than what they say. Do you agree ?
39. RyckNelson - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:28 PM PT
bloodnfire's school has a point system that can help assess the value a recipients belief that the caring is the "truth". The more points they get the more they believe they are cared for.
In real life we use money.
Now, what if your dirt poor, on welfare, can't buy clothes, good food, can't go to movies, no computer, no "real" transportation, etc........
Now, what does a child from this atmosphere assign as a test of "true caring".
Maybe a listening parent, maybe eating together, maybe walking together, I just don't know for sure. When I was young and we were very poor, I would have accepted the things I wrote as tests of "caring" by my mother. SO, what is this now?
I'm not sure anyone has started to be real about actual human life in this thread. I mean, what about the real life we try to live. Not about the prozac dependent, not about the idiout who beats his wife, or by the way the lover who beats their lover (for same sexes). These will need to be discussed in due time. I'm hoping there is an established base of agreement to follow, at some point in here. Not rigid, but some kind of common ground.
Voted points to agree upon???
Like 1), 2) or whatever? I suppose not, but it may be helpful to know that we are all talking from an established set of information. Hmmm... maybe not. It's just not something we follow in the Fray is it?
40. toonces - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:29 PM PT
The kids that I have known respond best to the adults who are having the most fun with life, because it gives them hope for the future. Most kids are worried that adult life will be a drag, and they are very relieved to hear that it need not be.
41. RyckNelson - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
yes, I agree.
I've been rambling again. My tangents can be stressing so I am making a sweeping statement that they occur.
42. RyckNelson - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:40 PM PT
That makes sense toonces.
Now that you mention it, that does appear to be what I see also.
But, that brings up another real life question.
What do two income parents struggle with when they are not very available to there child?
This has some real ramifications wrt the childs personal life. They will likely focus even more than normal attention upon peer relationships. This is a struggle with the parents job choice.
What does a parent do when they accept a job that is NOT conducive to family life. Think about that. How many retail parents, how many third shift parents, how many two income families are there?
43. RyckNelson - Jan. 4, 1999 - 6:46 PM PT
Oh, and I suppose I should mention those who choose the single lifestyle. They will have to come to terms with their realities.
I find it interesting to see some fairly descent sitcoms of late. They seem to portray some real emotions that singles will have. Sitcoms like Ally McBeal, Friends, and whatever others. Btw I'm digging that "Seventies" show.
Now, isn't this scarey, I'm looking at singles with comparisons to t.v.
44. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 1:39 AM PT
Good morning Ryck and Toonces. I certainly hope that we do get into 'real life' situations in this thread. We certainly don't want to waste time. Later on in his book, Glasser discusses 'real life' situations so they're coming up.
In the meantime Ryck, I don't believe the boys feel love in relation to their point cards. Toonces hit it when she says that kids respond best to adults who are having the most fun in life. Most [but not all] of our kids come from single parent homes or homes where they have no parent at all. Life has been a struggle for their parents, and it's so easy to get 'frazzled' when money is short.
One of the prime requirements for our staff, when they are being hired, is that they show love for kids. By that I mean that they are able to demonstrate an understanding of the pain and fear which many of them have in their young lives, and an ability to listen and communicate on the kids' level. We also look for a joyful disposition and the easy ability to laugh. It's those fears, combined with the angers which usually [almost always] go 'hand in hand' with them, which have led to many of the negative, antisocial crimes which eventually get the boys sent to be with us. We're a 'level 6' facility. No bars, no fences, but very close supervision. A 'last chance' for change before having to be locked up in the coercive, repressive,
soul destroying 'holding tanks' we call our prison system. Love and kindness does tend to overcome fear and angers eventually, and that is the environment we try to create and maintain for the childrens' sakes.
45. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 2:09 AM PT
A couple of quotes from Glasser's first chapter for today.
"As I explain in great detail in this book, we choose all our actions and thoughts, and, indirectly, almost all our feelings and much of our physiology. As bad as you may feel, much of what goes on in your body when you are in pain or sick, is the indirect result of the actions and thoughts you choose or have chosen every day of your life".
and....
"The best way to learn choice theory is to focus on why we choose the common miseries that we believe just happen to us. When we are depressed, we believe that we have no control over our suffering, that we are victims of an imbalance in our neurochemistry and hence that we need brain drugs, such as Prozac, to get our chemistry back into balance. Little of this belief is true. We have a lot of control over our suffering. We are rarely the victims of what happened to us in the past, and, as will be explained in Chapter 4, our brain chemistry is normal for what we are choosing to do. Brain drugs may make us feel better, but they do not solve the problems that led us to choose to feel miserable".
Make sense ? Utter nonsense ? Joyful Tuesday everybody.....
46. RyckNelson - Jan. 5, 1999 - 3:16 AM PT
"We are rarely the victims of what happened to us in the past, "
One more thought for children. It would appear that they will be choice makers also, yet they are in the nearest to coersive environments that we can provide. Not that the coersion is hurtful, but it is manipulative. As parents try to guide mistakes into better descision making with consequences and rewards.
With the above in mind, I still am unsure that the word victim is not applicable to children. Up to an age of responsibility though, which is difficult to determine. As crime appears to be showing it seems that is an age the courts are lowering every decade. Soon we can think of 10 year olds as old enough for trial as adults.
I believe children are often victims of their environment. Raise a child around prostitution and they may likely be a prostitute, raise them around drug use and they may use drugs and so on. If this is not being a victim then what is? Besides being directly abused. Oh, and speaking of abuse.
I have a question for everyone.
What do you think when you hear that someone is claiming they were abused as a child so that's why they abuse now, especially for the sexual offender? This is an excuse that seems prolific and it burns me up.
Yes, they were abused, but now you're all grown up and have a mind to choose right and wrong. I don't know, these people just burn me, I want them locked up in a special prison where they are coerced to believe how wrong they were. Abusing a child is mental/physical torture worse than murdering them. Don't you agree?
As far as the prison...too expensive!
Where's Joe Zan?
I mention Joe bloodnfire because he's in the same business as you've mentioned, for youth rehabilitation. I don't know his exact capacity, but he's mentioned it before.
47. RyckNelson - Jan. 5, 1999 - 3:31 AM PT
bloodnfire,
Will you comment upon what some detractors have commented upon wrt to this books content. Specifically a fraygrant in suggestions calls Glasser a "gasbag" and that his work is "hogwash". So what do you "really" think. Is this a misguided style. Btw what category of style is this? Therapy of what direction? I mean, self help, assisted, or what?
48. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 4:16 AM PT
Good Morning Ryck, [and to you jgeffert, welcome to The Fray !! I don't remember seeing your name before. Forgive me if you're a 'long time Fraygrant' who's just been 'lurking']. I put a 'tongue in cheek' post to jg in the 'Suggestions' thread this morning.
Regarding your question concerning Choice Theory and Reality Therapy, I'll try and share my views over the days ahead. I have to take off for work in a couple of minutes.
I do NOT agree with everything Dr. Glasser says in his book. I very much agree with some of the things he says, and he is the first to say that he is not the only one expounding the theories he does. There is also quite a lot I'm not sure I completely understand.
I value jgeffert's 'input' as I do that of everyone else, most especially yourself Ryck, with your wife's experiences helping battered spouses in mind.
I am in 'The Fray' to learn, and to share whatever light I may have in the hope that I can continue to clarify my own thoughts, and grow.
I very much enjoy this forum, all the threads, [wish I had time to check them all out every day], and all the Fraygrants, without exception.
Hope that answers your question for now ? See you this evening, all being well, with whatever input you may have.
Have a great day !! [You too, jg].
49. gravel - Jan. 5, 1999 - 4:37 AM PT
bloodnfire:
Allow me to apologize for not having read the book. I do, though, understand that the book was written not to give a new miracle cure, but because the author agrees with everyone who criticizes all the self-help books (which really help no one but the publisher and author). In spite of those books, Glasser must be saying that there are conflicts not as glamorous as marital infidelity. An example is the existence of all these troubled but invisible kids.
Toonces is doing her part by instinct and for free. (Without a salary, I mean.) Bloodnfire does a similar thing through an organization. I'd like to know how it is that those two people know something, and act upon that knowledge, and the rest of us either wring our hands or act like snobs when someone suggests we do something.
These young people who make an elderly person's trip to the grocery store a life-or-death journey aren't going to go away. Bloodnfire knows he got the kids because they lacked good role models (and, yes, I know how we hate hearing that word). It's not a glamorous situation. But it exists. If we don't want to take in a child the way toonces has, what's the best way to keep them from getting to bloodnfire's organization?
50. gravel - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:16 AM PT
bloodnfire:
I apologize for using an example which wasn't especially engaging. For various reasons, I'd hate to see a bureaucracy arise to take care of this problem with kids. People employed as a result of such problems have a vested interest in seeing that the problem remains in existence. This is a bad situation for everyone.
51. Judithathome - Jan. 5, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
bloodnfire...In #45, you quoted Glasser as saying our physical miseries can be the results of our bad choices. While I agree that bad habits can lead to illness, what of the child, age 10, who develops Hodgkins and who, after chemo, is left sterile? I speak of this because of intimate knowledge of just such a situation. It happened to my son and tho he is a healthy man of 36 today, he does suffer from bouts of depression and the experience has left him with a certain outlook on life that is not altogether optimistic.
A child of 10 couldn't be accused of bringing the initial disease on himself nor the results of the chemo. I am somewhat reluctant to even mention this personal matter but that comment you quoted made me think back on how difficult it really was to explain to a child that it wasn't his fault he was ill. The entire ordeal was a test of fire...we came thru it but looking back, I'm amazed we're sane.
52. PsychProf - Jan. 5, 1999 - 10:47 AM PT
Glasser says..."As bad as you may feel, much
of what goes on in your body when you are in
pain or sick, is the indirect result of the actions
and thoughts you choose or have chosen every
day of your life".
The arrogant words of a healthy human.
53. thoughtful - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
PP, sounds like a little Mary Baker Eddy, no?
Balance, what's needed here is balance.
Yes, a lot of our health problems are not of our own doing, but then again, a lot of them are. A neighbor nearly dies of a heart attack. Very overweight, he's told to exercise and reduce the amount of fat he's eating. Despite the best efforts of his wife, he continues to eat fat and fails to exercise. His weight remains the same. He even told my mom that when his wife isn't looking, he sneaks cream into his coffee. About a year later, the 2nd heart attack put him in the ground.
Compare this with a friend of mine who had his first heart attack at 46. He quit smoking. He's a maniac about avoiding fat and exercises for at least an hour each day. He's now a fit & trim 58.
Are not each of these fellows responsible for the choices they've made? Have they not each faced the consequences of their choices? And doesn't recognizing that go a long way to allieviating the guilt the widow felt for being unable to get her husband to change his ways, possibly extending his life?
54. ChristinO - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
Bloodnfire RE Glasser quotes in Message #45
While I suspect that there are thousands of people on anti-depressants who shouldn't be, to claim that all people suffering from depression and bi-polar disorders are just "choosing to be unwell" is utter crap.
Glasser shows a profound ignorance on this subject and a callousness that I suppose can only be expected from someone so totally uncomprehending of the actual issue.
His statement that events cause depression---events that are a direct result of our choices---stands as a glaring indicator of his ignorance. The problem with depression is that it can strike even when everything is going well. The bills are paid, there's money in the bank, the job is good, the home is happy and still one's every thought is that nothing is worth anything and it would be better if one were dead. No amount of love or success or aproval or satisfaction can combat it. It is totally irrational and even acknowledging that the feeling is irrational and unprovoked doesn't make it go away. Knowing that you're "crazy" doesn't make you suddenly "sane". Taking a drug like Prozac, or Wellbutrin or Lithium can fix that.
I find it difficult to understand a person who can see the necessity of insulin for diabetics but who cannot even entertain the idea that there is such a thing as depression caused by a malfunction in the processes of the brain.
55. ChristinO - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Thoughtful,
You are correct that balance is needed. Most of everything in our lives is within our power to control, but that's only most, not all. If one is fat one can diet, but if one is short there's not much to be done about it.
The important thing is to be responsible and aware about the things that we can control, to seek help for those things that we cannot manage alone and learn to accept those things that cannot be changed no matter how much effort and wishing we put into them.
56. PsychProf - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
Thoughtful..."we" don't need balance....your words are wise and understood. Glasser, OTOH, needs a dose of balance.
57. thoughtful - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
bloodnfire, I'm curious if you have any stats on how successful this approach has been with the boys you work with.
58. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
Hmmm....
I've been lurking and I haven't read the book, but I have a few thoughts.
A single parent *is* busy - I know I am. However, a single parent can choose to spend time with their child instead of the evening newspaper or the latest sitcom on TV. Is that layer of dust really more important than time spent doing something with your child? A single parent can utilize every second they have with their child to love their child, talk to their child and, most important, *listen* to their child. Don't just sit there nodding your head and thinking about work as they talk, really listen to what the child is saying AND what the child is *not* saying.
I just want to add my agreement to the posts concerning true clinical depression and bi-polar disorders. You can also experience depression as a result of a reaction to medication. I had that experience. Changing the medicine, stopped the depression as quickly and totally as turning off a light switch. There is a difference between feeling sad and depression.
"If one is fat one can diet, but if one is short there's not much to be done about it." I agree with this, however, there really are people who eat responsibly and exercise and still have weight problems. I was averaging 950 calories a day and walking 2 miles a day and gained 100 pounds. People in situations like this need to know that something is wrong with them pysiologically, not morally, and seek expert help.
OTOH many of the challenges in my life have been the direct result of poor choices on my part. The most valuable way to respond is to realize and accept that, learn whatever lesson is there, and move on.
59. ChristinO - Jan. 5, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
Christi,
My mom raised my brother and I on her own from the time I was 5. We're both responsible people. On the other hand the kids who lived next door to my grandmother all ended up in trouble with the law and drugs and sex and they had two parents who spent a lot of time in the home. You're right to mention that it's about ACTIVE and DEDICATED parenting. For all that the andrews' kids parents were maybe more physically available, their parents really weren't available at all and the kids never felt they could be counted on. I never had any doubts that my mother would come and get me at any time from any place if I needed her. Certainly we are not a perfect family. We have plenty of rough edges and things that we work on, but we're pretty "functional" if the idea of the family is to produce caring, responsible adults.
60. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 1:15 PM PT
I certainly believe the purpose of the parenting is to produce caring, responsible adults.
I try to keep that in mind on the occaisions when Lil' Darlin' tests her boundaries. &:o)
61. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:38 PM PT
Judithathome. Your Message #51 really touched my heart. You have already read that there are some things which Dr. Glasser writes I find difficult to understand. In fairness to him, he doesn't claim that ALL illness is the result of poor choices. Your dear son, obviously, was struck by an illness early in life through no 'fault' of his own, certainly not because of making poor choices.
On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me to accept the fact that much of the chronic ills which plague our society are indeed the result of consistent irresponsibility and negative choices.
I really appreciate your gentle spirit. I bet your son is a fine young man, and I am so glad that he came through the ordeal with you as he did. Is he happy ? Is he married ? How is his life ? [I hope the questions aren't too personal. If they are, just ignore them]. It has been said that we don't want this thread, for however long [or short] it lasts to be a superficial chit/chat. We need to get to where people are really hurting, and see whether the discussion brings out suggestions which truly help.
62. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:49 PM PT
jgeffert. In an early post you state that Glasser's theories 'promote isolationism and self-blame'. I can't imagine where you get that from, unless it's from Dr. Freud. Glasser encourages his patients not to keep re-hashing the past, neither to provide some excuse for their present irresponsibility, nor to explain their attitude. He encourages the assuming of responsibility now, as we do at the school. We don't dwell on the mistakes, poor choices of the past. We can't do anything about the past, but together, we can do a lot about the future.
Reality Therapy / Choice Theory involves the people around us, those we love and those with whom we work. It is the exact opposite of isolationism, as I understand it.
We provide schooling, endorsed and partially funded by the local County School Board. We respectfully, and with the permission of the attending Physician, refuse to continue Ritalin with a student. In the ten months that I have been there, all those boys taken off ritalin have done remarkably well in their schooling.
It's the same with the other 'buzz words' of this present age. A.D.S.
[Attention Deficit Syndrome] is amazingly and fairly quickly healed by gentle [and loving] encouragement to 'Participate' and 'Focus' on a sustained basis !!
63. lemwalker - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
Haven't read the book. Haven't read all the previous posts. I do like the sound of "choice theory". We all choose our paths. However paths are oftened hard to find. People flow like water, with all the drips hanging together. Role models don't have to be good. Many have taught how not to be.
64. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:31 PM PT
I'll try and address some specific questions....
Thoughtful. You asked in your Message #57 about 'stats' regarding our program. I'm told that through the end of 1997, our 5th year of operation of our Institute, the 'recidivism' rate [i.e. re-involvement with the Department of Juvenile Justice] of our graduates was approximately 25%.
This is almost the exact reverse of the Adult Prison System, in which the recidivism rate is right at 75%.
We grieve for those 25 of every 100 boys who go on to years in prison, in spite of everyone's best efforts. They are the main reason I am taking the time to try and host this thread. At the end of February I will survey the lives of the some 50 boys who together will have graduated during the past 12 months. I am also instructing a 'Restorative Justice / Victim Awareness' class, which we hope will have a positive affect on our boys. More about that later, perhaps.
PsychProf. You refer to some of Glasser's ideas as...'The arrogant words of a healthy human'. I spent about an hour on the telephone with Bill Glasser this last week-end, just to make sure I have a fairly good grasp of his theories. He strikes me as a gentle, kind and humble man. Those schools and penal institutions where his ideas, [and those of his teachers] are being practiced, are flourishing. We can check all this out in the days ahead. He doesn't hesitate to cite situation and place, and to welcome investigation. I and my wife worked at the Veterans' Hospital in Sepulveda, California, [where many of his ideas have been put into practice in the Psychiatric Ward with dramatic results], and his reputation is excellent. At the Wadsworth Veterans' Hospital as well, in Los Angeles.
Gravel. Don't apologize for not reading the book !! I'm not selling it. All I am trying to do is to highlight some of the main points from each chapter, day by day, to get a good discussion going. I very much appreciate your input.
65. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:40 PM PT
Speaking of 'arrogance', how about replying to my question, jgeffort, regarding that 'patient' of yours you told us about in your Message #4 who so arrogantly treated his wife ? Were you able to help their marriage ?
Goodnight everybody,
"Early to bed" [So I've heard say],
"Helps one stay healthy,
And fit for The Fray" &:-)
66. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 5, 1999 - 7:57 PM PT
I am not familiar with Dr. Glasser's book, nor of his previous work except in the broadest of terms, and excepting what I have learned from the thread so far. That caveat being said, I want to respond to some of the discussion thus far.
The idea that we control our feelings and reactions to events is attractive and a healthy antidote to the prevailing avoidance of personal responsibility forms the current zeitgeist. BUT we should tread carefully in the area of mood and attention disorders and mental illness in general.
There is a clear biochemical source to many mood disorders. The precise mechanisms are not clearly understood, to be sure. They nevertheless are a reality that transcends sheer exertion of will.
I agree that reframing one's thinking can have positive effects on depression, or attention span. These can actually result in biochemical changes in the brain when applied consistently over time. However, whether they are enough to bring a person's biochemistry back to the norm remains to be seen.
The fact that you have anectdotal evidence that children diagnosed as AD/HD removed from Ritalin doing well may be explained by the difficulty in accurate diagnosis for the disorder. The realization that many people do not "grow out" of AD/HD and continue to be troubled by the symptoms into adulthood has helped make the diagnosis "fashionable" in some circles. My guess is that none of the cases were at the extreme end of the spectrum, or that the children were misdiagnosed.
67. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:39 PM PT
You're probably right Jonesatlaw. This is one of the areas where I have questions. One of the difficulties our society faces is that Drug Companies have a huge 'axe to grind' by the continuing of a prescription 'ad infinitum'. I don't think I'm cynical, but I'm not sure how much interest they have in 'healing', when the individual no longer needs their product.
It's the same thing with Psychologists and Psychiatrists. With the utmost respect, they have great financial interest in 'treatment' which goes on and on and on. Over the years my wife and I in our ministry to the homeless have encountered many individuals who were obviously suffering from some sort of chemical 'damage'. How much of that damage had been caused by irresponsible choices in the past, e.g. drugs, is another aspect of our modern society, which makes discussing mental illness so difficult.
Then there's the very human tendency, which I have experienced personally, to enjoy a 'change in behavior' when one of our grandchildren who is too bored in class to pay attention, and is somewhat 'hyper', starts on medication which 'zonks him out' just enought to make him easier to handle. That in a sense was our irresponsibility. His mother [our daughter] had the good sense to see it, and she and her husband discontinued the medication after talking to the doctor, and worked instead at being 'choice theorists' with our grandson, as did his Grandmother and I. He's now coming along fine.
Thanks for your input.
68. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:57 PM PT
Couple of thoughts for today from Chapter 1.....
"For most people, the idea of going against 'common sense', especially in how they deal with their children, is a new and troubling idea. But assuming you would like to have less misery in your life, you may be open to learning why controlling and allowing yourself to be controlled are so destructive to the relationships you need to be happy".
and...
"This book is about much more than why people stay and accept external control. It is about the fact that the belief in and use of external control harms *everyone*, both the controllers and the controlled. For example, the abusive husband also suffers, [though not as much as his wife and family]. In choosing to do what he does, he loses any chance for happiness. This psychology is a terrible plague that invades every part of our lives. It destroys our happiness, our health, our marriages, our families, our ability to get an education, and our willingness to do high quality work. It is the cause of most of the violence, crime, drug abuse, and unloving sex that are pervasive in our society".
69. Snowowl - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:10 AM PT
I haven't read this book but I have just read an article written by Glasser in which he expounds some of his ideas concerning psychological problems and mental illnesses (which he seems to conflate). Quite frankly I find some of his claims nonsensical; the idea that all mental illnesses are caused by unsatisfying relationships seems to me to be oversimplistic at the least, and dangerous at the worst. I am the parent of a child with a serious mental illness. Certainly our relationship with her has become difficult but this is an outcome of her illness, not the cause of it.
To begin with, Glasser seems to ignore current research into the genetic basis of mental illnesses. Or does he simply want to argue that one chooses a defective gene? It may well be that there are better ways to help people cope with mental illnesses than those in current use, but helping people to cope is not the same as curing them.
70. bloodnfire - Jan. 6, 1999 - 2:21 AM PT
Welcome SnowOwl, to The Fray and to the thread. My understanding is that Glasser doesn't attribute ALL mental illness to unsatisfying relationships. Obviously, in the case of your child, there are probably organic or generic causes. Have they been diagnosed ? How are you treating her, medically ? Thank you for sharing your personal circumstances with us, and God bless you and your family as you learn to overcome it all.
71. Snowowl - Jan. 6, 1999 - 2:51 AM PT
From Glasser: "Focusing on Chemistry Instead of Compassion".
"I believe that there is only one basic psychological problem. Either a person suffers from a present unsatisfying relationship or he or she has no satisfying relationships at all. While there may be countless
variations of how people choose to deal with the unsatisfying relationship--variations commonly called mental illness--the answer to all psychological problems is improving a present relationship or finding a new, satisfying one. I have practiced psychiatry for over forty years and every person I have seen has this
underlying problem."
Unless I'm reading this wrong, Glasser is indeed attributing ALL mental illness to relationship problems.
My daughter has severe bipolar disorder (manic depression). She is one of the small percentage of people for whom Lithium is not particularly effective. The medication which works most effectively for her she is no longer able to take due to serious and potentially life-threatening side effects. She did not choose to become ill, she does not choose the course of her illness, it is almost certainly genetic in origin. Glasser insults the mentally ill by his contentions as well as the caregivers and families who are all affected by these illnesses.
72. gravel - Jan. 6, 1999 - 3:39 AM PT
Perhaps Glasser thinks of something like this before deciding to write a book: He spends his day listening to people who are unhappy. When he gets home he views on TV starving women and children in the poorest nation on earth, lined up for their daily allotment of food. It's these people, if any people, he thinks, who have reason to be depressed; but they don't have the luxury of sitting full-bellied and talking about life's meaninglessness to someone who makes his living by listening. (The starving children don't even know such situations exist. If their mothers had money, they'd buy food for their children, not anti-depressants or a listening ear.)
But how does one suggest that too many people spend too much time and money hiding from life, or blaming it, rather than facing it or changing its quality? People don't want to hear that they might be lazy, bored, failing to take responsibility for their own happiness.
I'm not saying mental illness and severe depression don't exist. I doubt Glasser says it. I suspect he wants people to see what they have to work with, rather than dwelling on what either they or life seem to lack. Come on, life does lack meaning. People who aren't afraid to state their opinions, people who make use of their knowledge and instincts daily aren't doing this to make others feel less. They're doing it because it leads to better things (whether for themselves or society).
73. gravel - Jan. 6, 1999 - 4:02 AM PT
By the way, for a lot of reasons, I do believe drugs should be decriminalized. Nothing warrants even one person's dying in the pain when our earth and our science give us the means to prevent it. I have no idea how we got to the point where we make innocent people suffer without medication and then turn around and let some criminals go free because they have drug problems.
74. gravel - Jan. 6, 1999 - 4:23 AM PT
To conclude my epistle, this. A young teenager is spending quality time with his mother. The TV's on, and starving people are lined up to get their daily allotment of food. The quality time ends on schedule. There's homework waiting; there's a test tomorrow. Mom's pill just happens to work at this time, too.
What's that kid learned about life?
This is a much-overlooked problem with drugs. We think we're making ourselves so much nicer to be around, so pleasant. But it may be the case that "pleasant" isn't what kids need to be shown.
75. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 6, 1999 - 7:04 AM PT
Bloodnfire- I agree that there are strong economic incentives to misapply medications, and at times it is hard to tell where responsible promotion of a new drug changes into a snake oil pitch. Clearly there have been times where Ritalin, for example, was over promoted and over-prescribed.
I would like to point out that there is a competing economic factor to consider for both over-prescription and over-treatment of children. That is the reputation of the product or treatment for efficacy. At some point, the perception of a drug or treatment as being effective is damaged by the practice and may result in significant loss to the company or practitioner.
There is also a serious concern regarding adolescent in patient treatment. I have heard numerous anectdotes of children hospitalized for periods of time strongly corresponding to the amount of hospital days covered by their insurance or HMO only to make nearly instantaneous recovery around the time the benefits are reduced or end.
76. Judithathome - Jan. 6, 1999 - 7:23 AM PT
bloodnfire;
Thanks for your kind words and interest. My son is indeed a fine man and because he was exposed to drugs used in his chemo and for pain maintenence at the age of 10, he never wanted to take them recreationally and even talked with his friends about avoiding them when he was a teenager. He is doing well and is one of very few considered cured from that time period. (He was diagnosed at stage 4 and was given experimental treatment which, thankfully, worked!)
He has had episodes of depression off and on but also has a sense of humor and an independent spirit and is managing fairly well to come out of his occassional funks without medication. However, a few months ago he was hospitalized with a sort of stroke...it's called transischemic something something (TIA?) and this WAS brought on by poor choices...he decided on his own to not take blood pressure meds and now is sorry about this unwise choice. He is on bp med now and has no side effects from the TIA.
I do think people can choose to be happy. For many years after my sons ordeal, I was a very negative person and was in therapy. I don't credit the therapy with *curing* me but rather, I made a conscious decision, long after I'd quit therapy, to sort of practice being happy. I would force myself to find a good feeling or look for the brighter side of a negative situation and gradually, it became easier to do and soon I didn't have to consiciously try...it became easy. My sons father and I divorced and I met a man with the absolute BEST attitude toward life and we've been together almost 18 years now. I made a choice, to choose happiness over negativity. It sounds simplistic but it worked and that's good enough for me.
77. PsychProf - Jan. 6, 1999 - 7:27 AM PT
Judith...excellent post.
78. Seguine - Jan. 6, 1999 - 7:43 AM PT
"Unless I'm reading this wrong, Glasser is indeed attributing ALL mental illness to relationship problems."
You're not reading it wrong.
Basically, this book sounds like a religious document: first, one accepts its basic permise. Then the book makes perfect 'sense'.
Bloodnfire is able to accept Dr. Gasbag's premises because he is habituated to believing things that are not rational.
And everyone who has posted here in support of the notion of Choice Theology has performed a simple manoever: pay no attention to the pieces that don't fit together, as long as the pieces that do manage to create a picture that 1) affirms certain personal experiences and 2) insists that those personal experiences are or could be universal, if only others would see the light.
79. Judithathome - Jan. 6, 1999 - 8:20 AM PT
seguine: Far from thinking my experiences are universal, I feel they are extremely personal and apply to me only. But surely you can agree we all have choices and must accept responsibility for the choices we make.
I wasn't buying into Glassers *theology* at all...in fact, I have some problems with some of his theory. But I would rather discuss things and try to learn another viewpoint before *universally* condemming the man as a gasbag and fraud.
80. thoughtful - Jan. 6, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
I wish I kept the article -- it was one of those syndicated columns of a child psychologist in the local paper. He tends to be very matter-of-fact about child rearing. He cited stats on how many children are now diagnosed with ADD vs. years ago. Needless to say it was a lot. He said it is just unrealistic to think that in less than a generation, this genetic disorder would magically appear across the country. Instead he pointed to poor child rearing. He went on about overhearing two older women discussing moms with unruly children. One said that parents expect daycare centers and teachers to teach these children to behave. The other pointed out that by doing so, they were turning over the respect the parents should have from their children to the teachers.
I know some have said here a lot about the role of love in child rearing, but respect is a biggie too.
Contrasting cultures. I remember being at a pool in Bermuda. Two British children were there, each from different families. The little girl went up to the little boy and said, "Hi. My name is Ann. May I play with you?" The little boy responded positively and introduced himself. They played together nicely -- by which I mean they seemed to have a good time without being a problem for anyone else at the pool: swimmers could swim, no one was splashed, etc. Finally Ann's mother called and said they had to go. The girl responded politely to her mother and then thanked the boy for having a nice time and hoped they'd be able to play together again soon. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. The children looked to be about 7.
81. PsychProf - Jan. 6, 1999 - 10:32 AM PT
Being responsible for our choices does not estalish a choice as independent of all save the immediate moment.
82. Seguine - Jan. 6, 1999 - 11:07 AM PT 84. Seguine - Jan. 6, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT 85. ChristiPeters - Jan. 6, 1999 - 11:45 AM PT 86. patsyrolph - Jan. 6, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT 87. patsyrolph - Jan. 6, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT 88. patsyrolph - Jan. 6, 1999 - 12:07 PM PT 89. ChristiPeters - Jan. 6, 1999 - 12:18 PM PT 90. ChristiPeters - Jan. 6, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT 91. jonesatlaw - Jan. 6, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT 92. gravel - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT 93. gravel - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:18 PM PT 94. Seguine - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT 95. ChristiPeters - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT 96. ChristiPeters - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT 97. Snowowl - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT 98. chloel - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT 99. gravel - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:58 PM PT 100. Seguine - Jan. 6, 1999 - 3:46 PM PT
Judith,
"Far from thinking my experiences are universal, I feel they are extremely personal and apply to me only."
You are not the point. Glasser's theores are. Experiences, from Glasser's perspective *are* universal; I base that contention on what has been quoted here, along with several summaries by people who have read his book. The issue, therefore, is not whether Glasser is right for some people some of the time, but whether, as he says, "everyone" is affected the way he claims. For instance:
"For most people, the idea of going against 'common sense', especially in how they deal with their children, is a new and troubling idea. [...] This book is about much more than why people stay and accept external control. It is about the fact that the belief in and use of external control harms *everyone*, both the controllers and the controlled."
Are *all* children harmed by "external controls"? Do *not* read anything into what Glasser is saying here, please. He specifies NOTHING about what *kind* of "external controls" he means, or more important, how the danger of one kind (say, locking your child in a box for two hours for deliberately bopping his sister on the head with one of his toys) vs. another (yelling at the kid, sending him to his room, spanking him...) is measured. He simply jumps with both feet into an example "everyone" is sure to agree with: spousal abuse is bad.
Here's another drip from the horse's mouth:
"When we are depressed, we believe that we have no control over our suffering, that we are victims of an imbalance in our neurochemistry and hence that we need brain drugs, such as Prozac, to get our chemistry back into balance. Little of this belief is true. "
Setting aside for a moment the question, Who is "we"?, let's try to see what Glasser means by "Little of this belief...". How little? Well, let's see:
...let's try to see what Glasser means by "Little of this belief...". How little? Well, let's see:
"I believe that there is only one basic psychological problem. Either a person suffers from a present unsatisfying relationship or he or she has no satisfying relationships at all. While there may be countless variations of how people choose to deal with the unsatisfying
relationship--variations commonly called mental illness--the answer to all psychological problems is improving a present relationship or finding a new, satisfying one."
How "little of this belief" ? Answer: NONE of it. Because "there is only one basic psychological problem". Mental illness is just the name we give to "how people choose to deal with the unsatisfying relationship".
Do you not see how ridiculous and sweeping a claim this is? Or is it just that you think all mental illness is as transitory as grief or as trivial as maladjustment?
"But surely you can agree we all have choices and must accept responsibility for the choices we make."
No. Saying "we all have choices" is like saying, in a discussion about poverty, "all Asians eat rice". SO WHAT? IOW, *how much* rice?
Gasbag's equivalent argument, in such a discussion, would be: 'People think they're hungry, even when there's no reason to be hungry. Rarely is anyone really starving. The solution to everyone's hunger may be found in choosing not to need food."
"I would rather discuss things and try to learn another viewpoint before *universally* condemming the man as a gasbag and fraud."
Not all viewpoints are worth learning, except in order to identify stupid, discredited ideologies such as this snake oil salesman would like to rehabilitate. The fact that he folds little pieces of truth into his poison doesn't make it less foul. Mixing Drano with vitamins doesn't make it good for you.
Thoughtful,
Your observations about children are quite similar to mine. Except that I have noticed that the following groups of children are often unusually kind and pleasant to one another and/or polite in public:
Children from India
Black American girls under the age of 10
OTOH, Israeli children, Spanish children, and the children of Green sympathizers from Germany are (in descending order of badness) intolerable. And white Amercians in general are about as bad as the Germans.
Seguine, I don't find much value in any sweeping generalizations.
My white American daughter behaves the way the British children in Message #80 are described as behaving. She does so because that is how I have raised her to behave. Her friends are also polite and well-mannered. Partly, this is because Lil' Darlin' is quite judgmental and refuses to have friendships with rude kids. Perhaps I and all the parents of LD's friends are very unusual. Perhaps not. Perhaps the many many well-behaved American children (any race) don't make the evening news or provide shocking fodder for discussion groups and thus viewpoints get warped. Perhaps I've just been lucky.
I dunno. It really wasn't very hard to teach LD how to say "please...", "may I...", "thank you", "thank you for having me over to play", "thank you for coming over", etc. etc. If there are parents out there who don't teach their children these things, I can't imagine why.
Sequine:
I recently spent a day at El Retiro Park in Madrid. I was spellbound be the children who were well behaved, polite and having fun. Later I met a couple from Holland who were visiting their daughter in Madrid. I asked them if my observations were valid and they assured me that their experience was the same. "But perhaps they are not so spontaneous" they added.
Christi:
Quite so.
But back to Choice Theory. I can't believe I bought the book but I am trying to read it with a "willing suspension of disbelief". I may choke to death holding back refutations..but I knew I didn't agree with Glasser's overstatements since I had read Reality Therapy long ago. I can't quite bring myself to scroll back yet so I am probably restating the obvious while trying not to scream "what about schizophrenia, stupid?" Not to mention
existentialism. Urg. I knew I couldn't do it.
Since I find little value in sweeping generalizations and, so far, it looks to me as if Choice Theory is one big collection of sweeping generalizations, I don't think much of Choice Theory. Of course, I have not read the book. If the local Library has it, I think I'll take a look at it.
I am in favor of people learning to accept responsibility for the results of their own actions and choices in life. However, there are things in life which happen over which you have no control or choice. In those cases, you have control over how you react to and handle the situation, but that's it.
Anyway, while I am a big proponent of accepting this responsibility, I in no way believe it is a comprehensive "fix" for any and all difficulties in everyone's life. It is just one of the ways to handle some of life.
Hmmm....
I'm not sure the above states what I want to say clearly. I'll work on it and try again later.
I would contrast reality therapy with cognitive therapy. Both center on addressing our reactions and choices wrt everyday stimuli. I am more versant in cognitive therapy. I understand it to be more accomodating to medical and pharmacological intervention.
Cognitive therapy as the name implies focuses more on how we frame our reacions to certain feelings or situations. It posits that we cannot always change our circumstances or surroundings by our actions, but we can change our thinking about them. By framing things in a positive or neutral way, we are better able to change what we can, and accept what we cannot.
Reality therapy seems to be like boot camp, and cognitive therapy seems more like the serenity prayer.
Snowowl, re Message #71.
You have the book. Could you please tell me (I apologize if this is stupid) whether the word Chemistry in "Focusing on Chemistry Instead of Compassion" is being used as an introduction to the subject of drugs, or does it have the meaning of "the chemistry between two people"?
Even if I take that second meaning all the way to the bottom of the quote, I just can't fit the last sentence in. I could imagine a theory that suggested something like loneliness or fear of loneliness accompanies all other problems. I can see how Glasser would make the distinction between psychological and psychiatric problems. But I can't imagine that everyone he's seen in forty years as a psychiatrist had real problems. (Or is it understood that the person to whom he said, "You don't have a medical problem; you SHOULD be wary of those rats" is not included in the last sentence?)
Snowowl:
The only way I could imagine someone's creating that strange title for a chapter was to imagine Glasser's saying that the compassion a doctor gives a patient is no substitute for love.
ChristiPeters, if I say: "And white Amercians in general are about as bad as the Germans," and such a statement is preceded at the start of my remarks by "I have noticed...", and I have not offered any reason for you to assume that I'm an authority on the subject of the behavior of children around the world, why should you object to my generalization? It's just a product of my personal observations which, judging by what you've said about whom you choose to associate with, are made about a cohort of people less uniformly pleasant than those you have the opportunity to observe.
"It really wasn't very hard to teach LD how to say "please...", "may
I...", "thank you", "thank you for having me over to play", "thank you
for coming over", etc. etc. If there are parents out there who don't
teach their children these things, I can't imagine why."
Because about 50 years ago, teaching children to behave according to rules of etiquette became considered in certain influential circles a form of unhealthy restriction on children's nascent "creativity" and "natural" freedom. The idea caught on, and to this day parents are inundated with 'expert' opinions and various media drivel about how "controlling" children is bad and will result in them growing up to "control" others (horrors!). (Israeli and Spanish children are ill-behaved for slightly different reasons.)
Of course, if you could ever be inclined to subject yourself to a careful scrutiny of nastier children and their parents--since the latter never fail to volunteer the predictable list of explanations for why they allow their kids to behave intolerably--I feel sure you would make the connection.
Seguine -
Shrug. I just don't form opinions about a whole nation, class, or race based on my personal observations. I am aware that the people of a country, class, race, etc. that I have personally observed constitute to small a smaple on which to make that sort of judgement.
I have no basis to doubt that you have in fact observed what you have observed. I guess I can just count myself lucky that I haven't encountered nasty rude kids as you apparently have. I just thought you might be interested to hear that there really are polite children in America. If I said anything to offend you, I assure you it was unintentional.
that's "...too small a sample..."
(geez, I'm fumble-fingered today!)
Gravel,
I have not read the book. I was quoting from an article by Glasser published on his web-site. The chemistry he refers to is brain chemistry. Essentially he is attacking those psychiatrists who focus on brain chemistry as the cause of aberrant behaviour. That is, he is saying that currently there is a misplaced focus on neuro-psychiatry, when it would be better to focus on effective psychotherapy (no doubt in his view, a hearty dose of reality therapy).
As far as I can tell, from my admittedly limited reading, Glasser makes no distinction between psychological and psychiatric problems. He conflates the two. All, in his view, are the result of unsatisfying relationships, either past or present. All, in his view, are amenable to appropriate psychotherapy.
There was a green valley on the Wagon Trail west, and the first settlers wanted to keep the people as pleasant as the place. When another family came past and wondered if they should stay, they always asked, "What are the people 'round here like?"
"Well," said the early birds, "I don't know how to put it. What are the people like where you came from?"
Whatever the newcomers said, the settlers responded, "That's just it, that's just what the people here are like."
Snowowl, thank you.
"Shrug. I just don't form opinions about a whole nation, class, or race based on my personal observations."
Nor do I.
"I am aware that the people of a country, class, race, etc. that I have personally observed constitute to small a smaple on which to make that sort of judgement."
What judgment is that, exactly?
...I just thought you might be interested to hear that there really are polite children in America."
I don't know what to make of these remarks? Have I ever said that *all* American children are impolite?
"If I said anything to offend you, I assure you it was unintentional."
Forgive me, but your assurance is rather transparent.
I believe it is you who have taken offense, and overreacted, to some mundane rhetorical excess of mine. Perhaps when you get around to accusing me more directly of whatever you think I'm guilty of, we can assess whether any offense I might have taken in turn is justified.
next
home