Reality Therapy: A New Approach to Psychiatry

by William Glasser

Explains the philosophy and procedures of the newer therapeutic method that emphasizes the individual's acceptance of reality and of responsibility for his or her behavior

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Counselling, Psychiatry, Mental Health, Self Help, Reference

240 pages, Paperback

First published March 28, 1965

Reviews

[Kate Rosenberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not hip to all the therapy schools/styles, but I am hip to Glasser's approach. He understands therapy as a somewhat reciprocal process and limits "processing" (or the more psychoanalytic aproach) to just getting the shit done. He's right up my alley. Or rather, I'm right up his. I bet I wouldn't be so damn crazy if he'd have ever been my therapist.

[Juliana · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 wasn't seriously taking into account the whole of Glasser's 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 "responsibility" 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.

[Ted Mallory · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just a terrific resource. Glasser is great. I don't 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- I'm definitely planning on reading some more of Dr. William Glasser.

[Keith Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Machiavellian Therapy
I bet you never expected to hear someone say that one of their role models is Machiavelli, a man who has come to represent deceit and lack of scruples, but here you are. I admire him because he was the first proponent of Reality Therapy.

If you look it up, William Glasser gets all the credit for inventing Reality Therapy. He was a psychiatrist who lived five hundred years after Machiavelli. Glasser didn’t believe in reaching into a person’s psychological insides to root around for what was wrong like the Freudians do. He thought problems arise when the person is not getting her needs met. He preferred helping people discover what they really want and showing them how to behave in a way that leads to success.

Nowadays, you don’t hear much about William Glasser or Reality Therapy. You heard it from me because, being a reflective eclectic, I possess a vast storehouse of unfashionable therapeutic methods. Glasser’s ideas have become mainstream, after having mated with others and evolved into present day forms of CBT, ACT, and DBT, which you may heard of, if you traffic in therapeutic methods.

Glasser probably did not realize how Machiavellian his ideas were. Niccolò Machiavelli is not often associated with therapy. We don’t study him in shrink school. His very name conjures up images of bare-knuckled political realism, duplicitous bad faith, and self-centered expediency. There’s even a theory that the Devil is called Old Nick in reference to him. But Machiavelli was a counselor, a counselor to princes.

As a counselor to princes, Machiavelli did what I like to do with my clients. He got them grounded. I don’t mean grounded in the sense of meditate-on-your-breath-till-your-thoughts-stop-racing type grounding; I mean grounded in reality: the basic knowledge of what is. You see, if we don’t pay attention to reality, we’re not going to know how to thrive within it.

It amazes me sometimes, how little regard we have for reality; we much prefer the domain of a fantasy world. Take a guy filled with road rage, for instance, fuming that someone cut him off. He’ll tell you the other driver shouldn’t be permitted on the road. He honks his horn and speeds up, just to ride on the malefactor’s tail and show him how annoyed he is. What’s wrong with this picture? Only that the guy with road rage is so taken by his sense of right and wrong he forgets he lives in a real world of physics in which he could die in a car accident even when he’s right. He can’t accept a world where people make honest mistakes and sometimes misjudge the speed and urgency of other cars when they pull out into traffic. He prefers to believe his car horn can communicate accurately and tailgating is an effective teaching strategy. Or he believes that screaming and acting out makes him feel better and he ought to be able to express his feelings freely whenever he wants.

Machiavelli would have none of that. Don’t try to talk to him about right and wrong. Machiavelli didn’t care about what was right, he only cared about what worked. No, let me correct that. Machiavelli did care about moral codes. He cared about them enough to say that a wise prince should appear to have one, but that the prince should discard it the moment it becomes a liability.
From what I can tell, Glasser didn’t have much to say directly about morality, except to refer to a vison people have of an ideal world called, Quality World. The guy with road rage has a vision of an ideal world in which everyone carefully obeys the rules of the road. He becomes righteously indignant whenever there’s a gap between Quality World and the world as it is.

For both Glasser and Machiavelli, it’s important to first identify the true components of Quality World. What you really want is seldom what it seems. What Machiavelli wanted was a stable political state, one in which the citizens were free, could prosper, and enjoyed law and order. Without that, nothing else was possible, not gentile manners, fine sentiments, nor love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, or faithfulness. Machiavelli had his one priority and all else was subordinate to it. He didn’t mind if a prince cut off a few heads, broke a few promises, started a few wars, and told a few lies if it resulted in political stability within his borders. He was willing to crack eggs to make egg salad.

If Glasser were to work with the guy with road rage, he would question him further about his vision of Quality World. The guy would start off by saying he wants everyone to follow the rules of the road. But, Glasser would ask, why is that important to you? We are all safer that way, the guy would answer, and we would get where we’re going with fewer hassles. Glasser would dig more, why is it important to be safe and have fewer hassles? The guy would look at Glasser like he was stupid, shrug his shoulders and say, it’s obvious, I want to enjoy life.

Once the vision of Quality World is sharpened this way, Glasser would begin phase two of his intervention. He would ask, what works? If you want to enjoy life, as you say, how do you go about doing that? What is effective? Do you enjoy life by fuming, screaming, shaking your fists, and tailgating? I didn’t think you did; you enjoy life by letting go of frustrations and behaving as if bad driving doesn’t matter.

This is where Machiavelli, and all shrinks to some extent, get a reputation for not having morals. People get hung up; unable to let go of the idea that following rules is important, even when rules don’t help. But rules are meant to serve people, not people, rules. How do you think I can listen non-judgmentally to all the horrible things clients say? I set aside moral codes when they are useless. I accept cheaters, narcissists, bullies, alcoholics, drug-dealers, woman-beaters, as well as child abusers, rapists, murderers, and criminals of all kinds as human beings no different than you and I. Everyone, when you get down to it, wants the same thing. We all have the same vision of Quality World. We just get stuck on ineffective ways of attaining it.

Another reason I admire Machiavelli is because, when it came to his field, politics, he was an early reflective eclectic. He thought a republic was the most desirable form of government, but he was not above advocating the others, monarchy and aristocracy, when they were useful. In the same way, I find Reality Therapy helpful only some of the time. For example, when I find one partner so devoted to a moral code that she puts up with all kinds of garbage from her partner while complaining about it. I start to think Reality Therapy might be good for her. I try to help her define her vision of Quality World and show her how alternating between enabling and scolding will not bring it about. Some people accept that and change their behavior accordingly. Others are so dug in that, if I continue in this vein, I’m just going to lose them. A Reality Therapist must accept reality. If Reality Therapy ain’t working, he’s got to turn to something else.

Keith Wilson writes about the intersection of psychotherapy and philosophy in his blog series, The Reflective Eclectic

[Brandt · Rating 2 out of 5]

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 "bolding" of all is mine and not the Glasser's) patients deny the reality of the world around them, who then, is the proprietor of reality? Are we lead to believe that the therapist's 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 "realism" 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 "real", 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!

[Amy Christensen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some merit though mostly cult like

I can appreciate the premise that ignoring damaging behavior in the present is detrimental to overall human health and wellbeing. However with that said, the concept of Reality Therapy leans far too much into victim blaming.

I find it very telling that the two groups that Glasser obsesses on are traumatized veterans and rebellious girls. Glasser staunchly claims both these groups suffer from the same problem, which is not trauma, but irresponsibility. I do think these groups are related by more than just trauma, I think both are condemned by unreasonable expectations of patriarchy. Young girls are too often demonized and classified as incorrigible because they do not uphold the patriarchal role assigned to the female gender. And traumatized veterans suffer because they display an emotional response to the horrors of war likewise demonized as being inappropriate for a “real man” as defined by the patriarchy.

Additionally, divorcing past experiences from present conditions is I think ill advised. If we can debrief the past, and appreciate the circumstances that were the reasoning behind decisions; we can then change our circumstances and propel potentially more desirable outcomes in the present and future. Likewise, refusing to explore the metaphors of a person’s dreams and unconscious mind severs a person from a huge portion and potential of their human experience.

I started reading this book as the Center of Self Actualization in Evergreen Park, Illinois was suggested to me as a convenient location to explore therapy for mild depression and anxiety. When I expressed concerns about the misogyny, racism, and homophobia expressed by the author and my reservations about the glorification of the therapist in this practice as the ONLY responsible person in a patient life to that center, my appointment with the center was immediately cancelled. The center in question insisted the appointment needed to be cancelled due to staff shortages, however the timing is suggestive.

I had great concerns that Reality Therapy with its glorification of the therapist and propensity towards victim blaming was strongly cult like in nature and the Center for Self Actualization only strengthened that concern as neither they nor Glasser seem tolerant of any criticism of the theory. If someone is unwilling to consider criticism then they are unwilling to consider improvement. That is disappointing at best, and considerably dangerous at worst.

[John Reis · Rating 5 out of 5]

“We believe that, regardless of how he expresses his problem, everyone who needs psychiatric treatment suffers from one basic inadequacy: he is unable to fulfill his essential needs.”

“In their unsuccessful effort to fulfill their needs, no matter what behavior they choose all patients have a common characteristic: they all deny the reality of the world around them.“ “Some break the law, denying the rules of society; some claim their neighbors are plotting against them, denying the probability of such behavior. “Therapy will be successful when they are able to give up denying the world and recognize that reality not only exist but they must fulfill their needs within its framework.“

“Briefly we must be involved with other people, one at the very minimum, but hopefully many more than one.”

“Psychiatry must be concerned with two basic psychological needs: the need to love and be loved and the need to feel that we are worthwhile to ourselves and to others.“ “To develop the underlying problem – we all have the same needs but we vary in our ability to fulfill them – we must examine the generally accepted psychological needs in more detail.“

I will not quote from the book anymore, although this is a fascinating therapy.

Reality Therapy does not acknowledge the existence of mental illness and it does not acknowledge the usefulness of digging into the past. Instead, it focuses on present behavior. It would be interesting to know how successful this has been and if anyone still uses it to treat patients.

[Raine O · Rating 1 out of 5]

My favourite quote was “mental illness does not exist”

[Frrobins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reality, or the more modern Choice Theory, has been one of those orientations that seemed different somehow. While it's never seemed popular since I started studying therapy, I would come upon a few people who were drawn to it passionately and the things they found remarkable about it tended to baffle me. So I decided to read Glasser's views on his theory to gain a better understanding of it.

My first thoughts were that in many ways this is a very different approach than a lot of methods I've seen. I had a hard time reconciling things such as how it isn't important to explore the past and that mental illness does not exist. But I did like the uncompromising stance on accepting the situation as it is and not how someone thinks it should be and I see early signs of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in this. I also thought he had a good point on how when we medicate anxiety we inadvertently reinforce avoiding unpleasant feelings, which is what causes anxiety to spiral in the first place and makes anxiety worse. As unpleasant as it is, confronting anxiety is the best way to get ahold of it and manage it and see it decrease long term.

I really felt the strengths of this approach when reading about how it was used in a residential hospital for delinquent adolescent girls. I felt that Glasser had an important distinction between accepting the individual but not bad behaviors and that he set up a good system that did not reward bad behaviors or manipulation (and it is stunning how bad and manipulative behavior can be rewarded in society). I can see this working well IF you have a very well trained staff who can identify and discourage manipulation and are on the same page.

At the same time, even with the strengths of the system he describes I see weaknesses in not exploring the reasons behind the behavior or the family environment. It seemed as if many of the girls he worked with were there for sexual inappropriateness which I assumed meant soliciting but reading some of the case studies I started to wonder if it was having same sex relationships (this was written in the 1960s). Glasser talked about how many of these girls, who were in their late teens, married soon after leaving treatment and returning home to their families. To me this raised a lot of concerns because teenage girls who resort to prostitution often have histories of incest and tend to marry young to get away from whoever is hurting them (and often end up jumping from the frying pan and into the fire).

I also had a bad feeling that if this was revealed, Glasser would potentially say to a child in this situation what he would say to the woman with an alcoholic husband ("what do you do to drive him to drink?") which in this case would be "what do you do to drive X to molest you?" I can't even begin to stress how damaging that would be to a client and this has always been something that has turned me off this approach.

For the record, when working with an adult recovering from an abusive childhood, my approach is to acknowledge the harm of the dynamics they grew up with and how what they went through was wrong and as a child they deserved to be protected and weren't and it wasn't their fault. I also talk about the cruel fact that the coping mechanisms they developed to survive an abusive environment no longer help them as an adult and that if they are going to take charge of their healing they need to let go of these old coping mechanisms and develop new ones. Which is where I got frustrated with Glasser. You can explore a clients' past without turning it into a get out of jail free card for present irresponsible behavior.

His thoughts about mental illness were interesting but I had to wonder if he overstated the ability of Reality Therapy to help people recover from debilitating illnesses such as schizophrenia, especially since he also claimed to cure homosexuality (admittedly he did admit that this is very hard to treat, a qualifier he did not put with schizophrenia). Given that we now know that homosexuality is not pathological and that our sexual orientation is fixed and can't be changed, this casts doubt on other assertions he makes about Reality Therapy being able to cure schizophrenia (to be fair, his attitudes were unfortunately in line with the times and other therapeutic orientations made similar claims with homosexuality and this was a sin that all of the older orientations committed and Glasser should not be unfairly singled out. Only other orientations aren't saying that mental illness doesn't exist and offering a cure for a disease like schizophrenia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Even with the limitations of this approach, the more I read the more I did see that in some ways it wasn't so different from other approaches when you dig deeper into it, but on the surface it definitely looks strange and off putting. There was unconditional acceptance of the individual but a rejection of bad behaviors, a separation that many therapists make to this day regardless of their orientation. And given that I feel that the internet has inadvertently fueled a culture that enables mental illness, I think there are some things about Reality Therapy that need to be reclaimed, such as a person's individual responsibility to take charge of their own mental health.

Still, I feel the past is so important in understanding how and why a behavior develops and can even relieve mental health symptoms when a client realizes that there is a valid reason that they feel a certain way, I do NOT believe homosexuality needs to be cured, and in the case of the woman with the alcoholic husband I tend to focus more on how we can't control other people's actions and whether we're willing to live with the burdens of having an alcoholic spouse or are ready to leave rather than blaming the wife for her husband's alcoholism.

If you're interested in the history of counseling approaches or understanding different approaches this is a good read. But I'm NOT coming out of this a Reality/Choice Therapy convert!

[Michael Seabrook · Rating 3 out of 5]

As much as I apprecitate the method put forward by Glasser in this book, I don't agree that it should be a 'be all and end all' sort of treatment. Whilst it's efficiency in assisting in behaviour change is quite notable, the failure it shows in truly understanding individuals is also visible. In fact it doesn't view long-term activities which may have occured in the individual's life as having any reasoning for why they commit what they do.

I do appreciate it's potential benefits in the event of necessary short-term change, however if someone is looking to truly understand themself and not just change to a socially acceptable level, but rather grow as a human I would not recommend this book.

Ps. Contains Freud bashing

[Stella · Rating 2 out of 5]

I appreciate some of the concepts in Reality Therapy, but overall, Glasser's ideas strike me as examples of extreme thinking. Absolutely no mental illness? People suffering from major psychiatric problems are simply irresponsible? His beliefs about the LGBTQ community and women are difficult to get through, as well. I realize the text was written in 1964, but it seems that an educated individual such as Dr. Glasser, would have possessed slightly more evolved thoughts concerning social issues.

[Paula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this was Glasser's first cohesive manifesto about Reality Therapy, and can be enjoyed for basic understanding of his position, and for historical purposes, his theories are much more readable and rounded-out in his later book, Choice Theory.

[Carmen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book influenced me and my work when I was employed in Child Welfare at D.H.S. It's probably out of style by now with many new and better theories taking its place. But it was important back in the '70s.

[Nick Kondyles · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you can get past the rampant misogyny, outdated non-person-centered language and the fact it’s written like a recovering psychoanalysts wet dream of self-help meets “approach” to psychotherapy which isn’t even really about what the title states, it’s almost readable!

[Nate Cooley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book about accepting responsibility and learning how to love and be loved.

[Lisa Greer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read and loved this one summer while working with troubled teens. It flies in the face, though, of our most recent sensibilities about how self esteem is gained, etc.

[Suzanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great read! I read it years ago and have continued to read William Glasser's books, taken his classes, and tried to apply his theories both in my classroom and in my life. This is a gem!

[Fishface · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best, most sensible approaches to therapy out there. This is the book that helped blast psychotherapy out of its psychoanalytic concrete. Every shrink should read it. And use it.

[آوانگارد| معرفی و بررسی کتاب]

کتاب «واقعیت‌درمانی» نوشته‌ی ویلیام گلاسر روان‌پزشک آمریکایی‌ست که در سال 1998 نظریه‌ی انتخاب و کاربست‌های گسترده‌ی آن در حوزه‌ی آموزش، سلامت روان و پرورش نیروی انسانی را مطرح کرد. باور گلاسر بر این است که برچسب‌هایی که به افراد روان‌پریش زده می‌شود به‌سادگی دستاویزی می‌شود برای آن‌ها تا تصور کنند همه‌ی آنچه موجب گرفتاری‌شان شده، خارج از حوزه اراده‌ی آن‌هاست و هیچ ارتباطی به شخص آن‌ها ندارد و این یعنی پرورش مسئولیت‌گریزی. تئوری و روش واقعیت‌درمانی بر این بنیان استوار است که رفتارهای هر انسان انتخاب‌های او برای ارضای نیازهایش است و اگر آدمی حال خوبی ندارد به این دلیل است که انتخاب‌های درستی نداشته است و باید در پِی تغییر اَعمال و افکار خود برآید و چگونگی دیگری را برای خود برگزیند.

کتاب «واقعیت‌درمانی» در چارچوب دو بخشِ «نظریه» و «عمل» ارائه می‌شود بدین‌صورت که فصل‌های اول و دوم به شرح نظریه واقعیت‌درمانی می‌پردازد و چهار فصلِ بعدی شواهدی دال بر کاربست عملیِ این نظریه ارائه می‌دهد.
مروری بر کتاب واقعیت درمانی اثر ویلیام گلسر را در آوانگارد بخوانید:
https://www.avangard.ir/article/825

[Lewis Elliott · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read Glasser’s “Choice Theory” in 2023 and really enjoyed its principles. Reality Therapy was not my cup of tea. I found an abundance of neat idea’s, frameworks, and discussion points; however, the ideas as to what a therapist a Therapist should do in Glasser’s “Reality Therapy” felt off. I can see the merit, yet I felt unsettled. Perhaps it’s the bluntness of the choice of language that left me unable to move through the bitter taste I gained. I couldn’t wrap my head around the statements where Glasser chose to pontificate morality, such as judging a young girl for having an array of self-inflicted tattoo’s as “pathetic”. Glasser would state that he, and other “responsible people” DO know right/wrong and it’s the responsible persons job to work to remove the patients “irresponsible” behavior no matter the cause or patient history. Ethically, and culturally, it feels yucky for lack of a better term. Again, there are many interesting, useful points and perspectives that I do feel positively about, just not my vibe.

[Greg Chewning · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely a love/hate relationship with this theory. It does not seem to take into account any biology within the human body, but is also empowering for clients to take hold of every avenue possible for their betterment. I understand how this theory, above all else, is important for anyone who has issues with trying to control others. The theory helps such clients see that control over others is an illusion, and the way to freedom is by focusing on one’s self instead. As a counseling intern, I find myself feeling a bit scared of ever calling one’s depression a choice. At the same time, I understood Glasser’s approach to help individuals see that one is not doomed to a certain state of being. This falls in line with many contemporary theories that have moved away from Freudian, psychodynamic determinism. Like I said, overall, it is a love/hate relationship. I did like the chapters on school focus, and I can see how empowering this theory is in a more social-work like context.

[Mark Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Much of this book is problematic to say the least...The approach taking to mental health issues is woefully inadequate, not to mention the way he speaks about how homosexuality should be treated. The core concept is fine, but application is worryingly narrow sighted. The theory seems to be aimed at making the role of the therapist as simple as possible, and client care is a secondary condition. Overall the core concept needs development to properly honour the complexities of the human condition. Regarding the book itself, this man cannot write in an engaging way. Do not read until you've had a coffee.

[T.ScottReviews · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't get past chapter 1. All I can say is that I am glad I wasn't alive in the 1960s when this book was written.

Was put off when the author said that people are mentally ill because they are unable to meet their basic needs and that the resulting behaviour of mental illness makes us unable to see the reality of the world around us and that makes us irresponsible thus making it sound like all mentally ill people are irresponsible oafs who want to go about life with a complete disregard for reality.

[Will · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting ideas which were laid out in the first 50 pages, but then the remaining case studies were so high level it was almost impossible to understand how the theory was applied and the theory proven effective other than "they had a problem, this method fixed them. Trust me."

Also i try not to judge too much on the era of a book's writing against present day norms, and maybe he gets credit for not being outright dismissive of homosexuality in the 1960s, but there are some clear moral judgements being made.

[Jim Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

Decades after Glasser’s book was published in 1965 his minor classic in the psychotherapy field still reads well. It's a precursor to the cognitive behavioural therapy approach that is now widely utilized across North America. Glasser writes about his experiences with Reality Therapy in several settings: a juvenile detention facility, a mental hospital, in private practice, and assisting grade-school teachers manage the problem behaviours of their most difficult students.

Glaser's lucid and approachable book was an informative and enjoyable read.

[Jethro LeBaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was super enjoyable

This book has the best outlook on mental health I know of. I love their approach on mental sickness; well, that it doesn’t exist. I wish I had learned and applied these principles earlier on in life, but like they say, moving forward in progress! Thank you to the author and those that make books like these available to read!

[Fry Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd suggest careful reading of this book. The author comes from the extreme viewpoint that mental illness is not real and all it needs is essentially personal willpower and morel recalibration. I consider that viewpoint as erroneous as the biological reductionist "mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain" narrative.

[Hobey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Learned a little about what reality therapy is. Makes intuitive sense. Some pretty out of date comments about homosexuality in here, but given that it was published in 1965... But that still doesn't mean it is ok. Only the first third of the book was helpful really.

[Josh A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

After finishing the book I’ve come to realize that a show I often rip on (BoJack Horseman) is not “mid” as previously described and is instead a term I have recently coined, that being “Glasserist Kino”

[Skylar · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book provided a whole different approach to Phycology than what I had encountered before. I think he puts correct ephisis on responsibility and taking ownership of one's situation and 'reality'.