Talk:William Glasser

message: User:66.50.0.70 added a Spanish translation of this article.  I have moved it to es:William Glasser at the Spanish Wikipedia.  Dave6 talk 06:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish translation 

message: Linda Harshman, Executive Director of the William Glasser Institute, has given the Wikipedia formal permission (see below) to post the photograph of Dr. Glasser that appears on the Institute website. I posted that image previously and it was removed altho removal was protested. I will soon restore it.  Ms Harshman requests a small correction to the text, which I am making today. 
"Dear Mr. Ferguson:
This email will give permission for  Dr. Glasser's picture to be used on the Wikipedia page.
In terms of what is written I would change the second sentence to say that
He is notable for having developed a theory that explains how and why we
behave.  I don't believe it is accurate to say ....developed a cause and
effect theory.
Sincerely,
Linda S. Harshman, MSW
Executive Director
The William Glasser Institute
22024 Lassen Street, Suite 118
Chatsworth, CA   91311
(818) 700-8000; (818) 700-0555 fax
http://www.wglasser.com"
Frankatca 01:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glasser Image & Text

message: So, is Glasser's body of work yet another exercise in psychological theory building?... or... does it have a legitimate body of empirical support?
Although most psychological theories have traces of reasonable notions, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is called for....and this entry is yet another example.
The fact that this Wiki reference only leads us to look at Glasser's own web site for further information is worrisome.  Instead, there should be references to empirical support and cross inspection by disinterested parties.  Hopefully, the inspection will include professionals who are familiar with proper experimental design without resorting to inferential stats.
One day, I hope we will approach human problems in the same way science addresses chemistry, biology, and the other natural sciences.  Proper science doesn't allow for philosophical ruminations that go un-inspected. Not so with psychology.
Somehow, psychology has managed to remain in a pre-scientific world of philosophical theory building and is vulnerable to all kinds of fads that seem to come and go...  something that no other science seems to suffer in any comparable way.  Only in psychology could we have highly respected leaders such as Timothy Leary (a Harvard psychologist!).
I often wonder why this is so. My best guess is that psychology fully depends on the naivety of their immediate customer: the general public.  Not surprisingly, this is the same customer that supports astrology and psychics.
One can only hope that these theories will one day arrive at some reliable methods for improving lives even if it's just by accident.
I am going to see William Glasser speak in May '08. I am sure he will have interesting things to say, and I fully expect to be charmed by his ideas.  I don't know.  Like many others, I have been seduced by a variety of psychological ideas.  However, it eventually became clear that we still stand in a position to help people that isn't much better than we were hundreds of years ago!  No other science can make such a depressing claim.  Why?  Because the other sciences require the toil involved in the scientific method.
I have met many wonderful human beings that make a living in this soft-theory laden world, and Glasser is probably similarly wonderful.  Nevertheless, the evidence is weak.
Behavior Analysis (the experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis) is the only "psychology" that takes pains to comply with the standards of natural science.  The empirical support is unquestioned.  The success rates are well documented. Of course, all are welcome to cross examine this assertion.  After all, cross examination is the hallmark of real science!
I submit that Timothy Leary types are almost impossible in the field of behavior analysis (and chemistry, physics, astronomy etc.)
Unfortunately, traditional psychology is very uncomfortable with many of the implications of behavioral science.  Interestingly, they seem to have more than their fair share of guru public speakers and icons.  oh well.
P.S. I would be entirely comfortable if the field of behavioral science were removed from the rubric of psychology and, instead, locate itself within the field of biology.  In this way, psychologists could do their own thing and behavior analysts could hang out with people with whom they can relate!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfskinnerpunk (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think this is an appropriate place for your ranting about your opinions on the field of psychology. If you care to document empirical evidence for or against Glasser’s modality, perhaps doing so under the Reality Therapy topic would be best. FYI, there are also MANY peer reviewed psychological journals that adhear to firm scientific riggors and methodology.  Negalith (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical Support?