Talk:Reality therapy

message: I will try to clean this up and expand it into something fairly thorough, and I welcome comments and suggestions. Of course anyone can contribute directly to the article, but if it helps I'll volunteer to coordinate things; so, maybe we could contribute to the discussion before editing the article? For what it's worth, I have no philosophical ax to grind so I will be writing very carefully, neutrally, and simply as much as possible.
I will initially simply try to add structure and clarity, rather than majorly re-write the article. First, let's try to add a structure with appropriate sections - thoughts?
Possible sections:
*Introduction (to be written in very simple language with minimal assumptions of prior knowledge)
*History
*Philosophy & approach
*RT in practice & applications
*Research (I will certainly need help here, this I may leave for now)
*Criticism/comments of RT (to be done very neutrally, I'm not at all anti-RT)
*Comparison/contrast with other approaches (main points only, no flamewars!) and placing in *context.
*References
*More reading
I will edit and come back to it as much as possible, it will be a work in progres for the time being. Note, I do have some knowledge of the area and related areas, but I would very much welcome expert input.
If I don't hear from people I'll just go ahead! :-)
Paulc1001 12:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a good structure to me. For my part, go for it. I've done some minor clean-up too, not major as although I understand the theory, I'm not an expert in it. My interest is to see a clean article, basically. FT2 22:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I saw this article hadn't been edited for a while, so I added a section on the process itself (and removed a redundant paragraph from another section). The article as a whole still needs a lot of cleanup.
I think it's important to acknowledge that the process was developed before the theory-- Reality Therapy was being used successfully before Glasser came up with a theory to explain it (maybe some discussion of Glasser's early experiences at the VA hospital would be appropriate here).
I see Reality Therapy as a sort of bare-bones behavioral theory: convince the client to take any positive action, and build from there. IMHO much of Glasser's success is due to his emphasis on building and maintaining the therapeutic relationship while this is going on (as opposed to just focusing on the behaviors themselves). -Rbean 16:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Process before Theory

message: Under Criticisms
An opposing view to this is, that many other schools of therapy (especially cognitive approaches) focus on the present rather than the past, and that the concept of disconnection (or failure to correctly perceive how motive and inner need/intent are linked), is in some form or other, at the root of dysfunction is also considered not unusual, according to several other accepted schools of therapy, from transpersonal therapy through neuro-linguistic programming to transactional analysis.
Any one can rewrite this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.66.126 (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  readibility 

message: I noticed nothing has been referenced to Dr. Glasser's theorem of Positive Addictions. Perhaps someone could address this in the appropriate place.
CWatchman (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive Addictions

message: "Establishing a wuggy relationship with the client is believed to be the most important factor in all types of therapy. Without this relationship, the other steps will not be effective."
I've never seen the word wuggy used with Reality Therapy before. Is this vandalism?
Jeff Vollmer 4/30/08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.199.148 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wuggy Vandalism?

message: Move (moves that bring pages into conformity with the MOS are usually uncontroversial, so in the future, just list them in the uncontroversial section at WP:RM) Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: The entire first section of this article is basically taken word for word from the following website:  http://www.realitytherapycentral.com/index.php
and should be acknowledged!
JodyR 1/14/201171.186.124.168 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed. 

message: This article is a mess, it sounds like an advertisement for Reality Therapy. Let's not deny how unscientific this method and its basis is. The whole article has so little citations, and sounds like it was copied from a RT advocating website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.0.17 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: To my knowledge, there is little or no empirical support for the effectiveness of this therapy method. This treatment method seems logical, reasonable and constructive, but that doesn't mean that it is actually more beneficial than a placebo treatment, in the real world.
The article emphasizes theory over method. However, theories don't improve functionality and quality of life. Treatment methods do that -- and in many cases, fail to do that.
It's possible that the method of Reality Therapy was never standardized and manualized. In that case, it's impossible to study its effectiveness in a controlled clinical trial, because it's impossible to know if the therapist is actually doing reality therapy.108.211.84.128 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Empirical Support