کتاب واقعیت درمانی

اثر ویلیام گلسر از انتشارات سایه سخن - مترجم: علی صاحبی-ادبیات آمریکا

Glassers classic bestseller, with more than 500,000 copies sold, examines his alternative to Freudian psychoanalytic procedures, explains the procedure, contrasts it to conventional treatment, and describes different individual cases in which it was successful. The reality therapy approach to counseling and problem-solving focuses on the here-and-now actions of the client and the ability to create and choose a better future. Typically, clients seek to discover what they really want and how they are currently choosing to behave in order to achieve these goals. According to Glasser, the social component of psychological disorders has been highly overlooked in the rush to label the population as sick or mentally ill.[3] If a social problem causes distress to a person, it is not always because of a labelled sickness, it may sometimes just be the inability of the satisfaction of one’s psychological needs. Reality therapy attempts to separate the client from the behavior.


خرید کتاب واقعیت درمانی
جستجوی کتاب واقعیت درمانی در گودریدز

معرفی کتاب واقعیت درمانی از نگاه کاربران
مردم نه به علت اینکه @بیمارند@ غیر مسئولانه عمل می کنند بلکه چون غیر مسئولانه عمل می کنند بیمار هستند.
مسئولیت پذیری، به معنای توانایی فرد در برآورده کردن نیازهای خود است، البته به شیوه ای که مانع برآورده شدن نیازهای دیگران نشود.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Interesting theory...
Glassers theory that emotionally distressed individuals are behaving irresponsibly because @they deny the reality of the world around [email protected] resonates with me in my classroom. While not always practical (or defensible, in my opinion) I am definitely tweaking my approach in my classroom. My new mantra will be @are you doing the responsible [email protected] Teach students that fulfilling their needs has to be done so as not to deprive others of the ability to meet theirs.
Kind of been doing this loosely already - denying rules apply does not make it so. Well see.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Im not hip to all the therapy schools/styles, but I am hip to Glassers approach. He understands therapy as a somewhat reciprocal process and limits @[email protected] (or the more psychoanalytic aproach) to just getting the shit done. Hes right up my alley. Or rather, Im right up his. I bet I wouldnt be so damn crazy if hed have ever been my therapist.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
As a young therapist in the field, there are many parts of this book that frustrated me and turned me off... however, I realized that I wasnt seriously taking into account the whole of Glassers approach: TO NEVER GIVE UP on a client means a commitment to unconditional regard and consistency that most therapists cannot actually afford to make or follow-through on. However, within the foundation of such a strong relationship and by remembering HIS definition of terms such as @[email protected] and @meeting needs,@ he gives some compelling examples of how clients will often make necessary changes in their lives when the responsibility is places squarely in their own laps.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Just a terrific resource. Glasser is great. I dont 100% agree with absolutely everything, but his main points- meaningful involvement with the student, non-acceptance of irresponsible behavior, showing them how to behave responsibly. While first I plan to take a break for some guilty pleasure summer fiction reading- Im definitely planning on reading some more of Dr. William Glasser.

مشاهده لینک اصلی

I do not doubt the words of Dr.Mowrer O. Hobart, in the forward that “[t]his is a significant book”. It is with the utmost professional respect that I render this review as a critique; or if you prefer an opinion; and as Walter Kaufmann(1954) famously interpreted Friedrich Nietzsche in The Portable Nietzsche, “Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying @there are only facts,@ I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations…”.



From the introduction forward, I struggled immensely to form an objectiveness to the subject matter that would render it in some way “real,” and/or “workable” towards providing meaningful therapy for those seeking it. What I found instead is a dangerously clever attempt to circumvent human nature and declare a shortcut towards the process of becoming.



To again address the forward of Mowrer, the claim is that from presumably the 1950s until this book was written in the early 60s, “it was evident that something was seriously amiss in contemporary psychiatry and clinical psychology.” While this statement may seem correct, it negates importance by failing to mention the term “therapy,” even though implicit in the charge, and leaves a two pronged attack on clinical psychology and psychiatry. Mowrer then uses this perspective, which, by the way, does not seem to be congruent with the intended “reality,” but is, instead, opinion, to level the anonymously over heard charge that “we psychiatrists have often spread the disease we were supposedly treating”.



Think about this claim. Here is an anonymously sourced claim indicating that psychiatry is guilty of spreading a disease that they should instead be treating. Is this fact? Where is the evidence? Who is the source? If we are to accept responsibility, an important feature explained later in the reading, and if we are to accept reality, then surely the protagonist of such an approach would do equally well to show the facts and evidence that indicate such a supposedly “real” indictment.



Notwithstanding this critical approach to mostly the foreword and introduction there is still much salvageable material in the reading. It does seem that there was, and still is, problems in the psychiatric community that require attention. Hence, any change was, and is, probably important. There is praise to be given to Dr. William Glasser’s willingness to address profound issues head on. I can’t doubt his sincerity; nor can I doubt that the type of therapy that finds its strengths in focusing on the present and the future, and denying past problems could be effective. In fact, I find many of the “techniques” explained to be quite reasonable, and possibly effective in dealing with problems.

The critique comes when the underlying explanations, of human nature, of avoiding past problems, and of a client’s “failure” to see the reality of the world, are used as foundational grist to support common sense principles of most counseling services.

Here is an example, “In their unsuccessful effort to fulfill their needs, no matter what behavior they choose, all patients have a common characteristic: they deny the reality of the world around them” (p. 6). So, if all (Nota Bene, the @[email protected] of all is mine and not the Glassers) patients deny the reality of the world around them, who then, is the proprietor of reality? Are we lead to believe that the therapists view should be taken as the paragon of reality? I can interview many diverse clients, and each client will probably view the world differently. Perhaps a more plausible @[email protected] is that people have different perspectives, and no one perspective controls the others. If your immediate answer is that someone is denying reality, then you are claiming that you, as the therapists, have some special insight into the nature of what is @[email protected], and you, alone (or others with your equally perplexing ability to “know what is real”) are the sole arbiters of things as they are.



Then, there is the questionable idea that in order for a human being to fulfill their needs, they require involvement with other people. Is that claim universally valid? I can think of quite a few people who do just fine without the need to be involved with other people. Clearly, there must be a solid definition of “involved” that does not require such a tremendous obligation as the one suggested by Glasser. Here in this “need,” we find again the omniscient view of Glasser stating, “One characteristic is essential in the other person: he must be in touch with reality himself and able to fulfill his own needs in the world”. Again, I must question the validity of such an objective universally applied statement. As an example, how often is there a co-dependent relationship where neither person has a view of the reality expressed by Glasser, yet the relationship still fulfills each other’s basic needs?



Look, I have read the book, I agree with a lot of the principles that Dr. Glasser offers. In fact, I would personally use many of them, depending on the situation. You see, these techniques are good, but they are not universally valid. If you can just get past the idea that the foundations of Reality Therapy need work, the actual techniques seem promising.,/p>

This review, unfortunately, has turned in to more of a critique. Perhaps as I study further developments in Reality Therapy, such as “Choice Theory,” I can learn to enjoy the techniques. For now, however, the review (ne critique) is of this specific book, and the ideas espoused by it. Therefore, I stand by my rating.



Enjoy the read!




مشاهده لینک اصلی
کتاب های مرتبط با - کتاب واقعیت درمانی


 کتاب ناخدا برای ناهار رفته و ملوانان کشتی را تسخیر کرده اند
 کتاب غم های کوچک
 کتاب مروارید
 کتاب بیلی بتگیت
 کتاب خانه خیابان مانگو
 کتاب گیلیاد