Choice Theory

Has anybody read the book "Choice Theory" by William Glasser? It explains objectivism in a very practical, down to Earth, person to person way, even though the author makes no mention of it or Ayn Rand.

The home page for it is:

http://www.wglasser.com/whatisct.htm

A good review of the book can be found here:

http://www.itaa-net.org/TAJNet/reviews/haimowitz-choice-review.html

I would really like to hear what you guys think of it. I think that this book makes a very powerful statement on how objectivist thinking can make the world a much better place to live.

BTW, the BB&T values page is totally consistent with the chapter in the book dealing with the workplace.

Post 1

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 9:57am

Ted, it is good to see you here! I see you on the local freethought list regularly. Perhaps you can make an Objectivist meeting some time.

I need to get Glasser's book. I took an informal class on Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) years ago and the workbook mentioned Glasser when discussing the basic needs that drive human behavior.

EDIT: What does Glasser say about self-esteem and reason? I see from the link that he claims most problems stem from relationship problems. Does he recognize the role of one's good relationship with one's own Self, i.e., high self-esteem, as the key to good living?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/01, 10:30am)

Post 2

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 10:10am

Ted,

Criticizing, Blaming, Complaining, Nagging, Punishing, Bribing or rewarding are all necessary for every person to live. Threatening is necessary for a government to do its job right (the job is to protect innocent people). "Bribing or rewarding to control" is an impossible concept.

To criticize, to communicate like and dislike behaviour, correct and incorrect answers, is extremely important in helping a person figure out what is liked, what is disliked, what is correct, and what is incorrect. Could you imagine a relationship where you only told the other person when they did something you liked, but you never mentioned anything when they do something you don't like? Could you imagine a mathematics teacher that only marked correct answers as right, and never said anything about incorrect answers? Complaining, Nagging, also forms of communication telling a person how you feel about something you don't like, but these words have negative connotation.

Threatening, backed by execution, is necessary in legislature to bring justice to force initiators. Of course threatening to initiate force is a terrible thing. But warning that you will end trading and take your business elsewhere may be necessary.

"Bribing or rewarding to control" -> no. You can't control a person by bribes or rewards. You may very well influence the outcome of a decision to a person making it (which may or may not impact their decision), but the person is still free to act, and the decision is made without coercion.

--------------

One critical aspect of objectivism is rational selfishness, and that altruism isn't necessary and even harmful. What does William Glasser have to say about that?

Post 3

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 10:36am

A crap, I just committed one of the Seven Deadly Habits. Hmmm... but how else am I to communicate that something is incorrect?

And here is a summary of an hour session with a couple:
Glasser: What is the problem?
He. She keeps spending money.
She: He nags me about money.
(There is much arguing and accusing.) G: I can't help you if you keep this up.
G: Who can make you change?
He: Only I
She: Only I
G: What can you do different to make the marriage better?
He: I can say nothing about money to her.
She: I can be a little more affectionate.
They leave feeling better.

No! The doctor is allowing the husband to continue to be a slave to his wife, giving her money not by trade, but because he has accepted altruism. Now he won't even mention that he doesn't like giving away what he worked for, he'll just do it. And she! All she offers is to be more "affectionate"! Meaning what? She will say "Honey, I'm very appreciative of you giving me all this money when I haven't even earned it!"

Relationships should be about trading value for value. No sacrifice is necessary, nor does sacrifice bring happiness.

Post 4

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 11:10am

She will argue that her affections earned every penny she got, Dean. Oh, wait, I thought sex for money was illegal? Oh, never mind. Suffice it to say that I appreciate your points and sanctioned your posts.

Post 5

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 11:57am

No! The doctor is allowing the husband to continue to be a slave to his wife, giving her money not by trade, but because he has accepted altruism. Now he won't even mention that he doesn't like giving away what he worked for, he'll just do it. And she! All she offers is to be more "affectionate"! Meaning what? She will say "Honey, I'm very appreciative of you giving me all this money when I haven't even earned it!"

Dean, I'm surprized at your assumption of unbalanced trade here. I can just as easily assume he's a fucking pig for expecting his wife to nurse the twins 24/7, keep "his" house and clothes clean, and himself properly fed with his favorite meals while he bangs his secretary on the side. I think the guy in this scenario is a complete prick! :cp

You being a dude and all, I shouldn't be surprized you'd think the worse of the wife. But being the thinking dude I know you are, I am surprized. The point is, we don't know near enough to assume he's "sacrificing" anything.

Post 6

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 12:33pm

Teresa, I agree with your points and if that really is the context, you are right. I think Dean is just taking the discussion at face value because that is all that is provided as far as I can tell. I cannot locate the page from which he extracted the quote, so perhaps I missed something.

If the context is really as you describe, then the therapist has not dug nearly deeply enough into this couple's situation for his "prescription" to work.

I have read that the three main causes of divorce are:

Lack of appreciation
Lack of affection
Nagging

So the therapist has hit some of the main trouble points. But more work is clearly needed, especially if the wife really is spending more than the husband can afford.

If his complaint had been about her drinking instead of her spending, would you have reacted differently? Both can be forms of problematic excess.

The bottom line is that I saw reason and rights introduced nowhere in the discussion. It all seemed aimed at stopping arguing without going deeper. Stopping the fighting can start the healing, but it will not complete it.

Post 7

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 1:48pm

This is where one of Branden's sentence completion therapies would be of value...

Post 8

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 12:57pm

Hello everyone,

The case for altruism on the husband's part does not seem to be substantiated by enough evidence per what was posted

Drinking too much was not included in the post so there is no evidence for or against that particular action.

In order to claim altruism on the part of the husband would not one need to know what the responsibilities of the wife are in the household? if she keeps the house, does not that carry a value which could be used for trade, same for children rearing, grocery shopping, bill paying, or innumerable other things which could be considered tradeable.

What were the prior agreements between the two? What is "too much", More than he makes or more than he is willing to give her?

I also did not read where the doctor told him he had to give her any more or any less or even the same amount of money, but rather where the conclusion was for him to stop complaining which he could do and still cut back the amount of money he gives her.

Post 9

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 2:31pm

I remember in early 1991 purchasing a Dome Home Budget Book for tracking expenses. It had an appendix entitled "How Much Is a Housewife Worth?" It listed market values for laundry services, housekeeping, etc. The total came to roughly $30,000 per year. Of course, this did not account for the sharing of housing and other common costs, nor did it include costs for sexual favors.

If she is actually doing all these tasks, then he needs to pay her accordingly. If she is a prima donna who just wants money for affection without lifting a finger to help with anything else, then she should at least be honest enough to call herself a courtesan.

Post 10

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 2:48pm

Teresa, Mr. Hall, Yes, there's simply not enough evidence. From the text given, its unknown whether the man or the woman are paid in full to the extent of the value they produce. All we know is that the man has money, that the woman wants to spend it, and he doesn't like it when she spends it.

As for whether or not there is altruism in this case: What does marriage usually entail? To promise that you will value the other person's life more than your own? To promise that the other person will always be your second highest value? To promise that you will do your best to fulfill the other's needs and desires, no matter the cost, no matter what?

Sounds like sacrifice for a false sense of security to me. I wouldn't be surprised if both the man and the woman in the said relationship practiced altruism. Is there an initiation of force in the relationship? Not as far as we know. So that's great! Now they can work on improving their relationship by becoming more productive, independent, increase their self-esteem, appreciating and enjoying the values they offer each other. Yet I haven't had 20+ years of experience in romantic long term relationships, so what do I know?

Post 11

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:05pm

Dean,

I must have missed something in the text. Where do you find that it�s his money he�s bitching about?

Jon

Post 12

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:09pm

Jon, we don't know for sure who actually produces the money she is spending. Of course, if he is a "house husband" whose career wife is spending so much that he cannot properly care for the children, etc., then we still have the same bollixed situation. As I said, the example in the text leaves much to desire!

Post 13

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:12pm

Jon, maaaaaaybe. Who's money would it be then? I think I've had enough with this circumstance.

Post 14

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:19pm

The text appears sufficient for Luke and Dean�s persistent assumption that the man�s bitching must be based on something reasonable. Whatever data we are missing, it would disclose, contra her, that he�s right and reasonable�right?

Post 15

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:21pm

You�ve had enough!? You�ve said what you came to say and now you are leaving the room? Just like a woman.

Post 16

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:29pm

Luke and Dean�s persistent assumption

Wrong. No assumptions. She spends money. He complains about it. They appeared happy after he said he would complain less and she say she would be more appreciative. That's all.

Post 17

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:33pm

Jon asked:

The text appears sufficient for Luke and Dean�s persistent assumption that the man�s bitching must be based on something reasonable. Whatever data we are missing, it would disclose, contra her, that he�s right and reasonable�right?

Maybe right -- maybe wrong. That is what I have been saying: The text does not tell us enough to know for sure. This is why I have expressed sympathies for the various viewpoints here -- except for those of Glasser, whose text omits the key information we need to evaluate his methods objectively.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/01, 3:34pm)

Post 18

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:56pm

Jon,

It seems like you are trying to make me appear as if I support men unconditionally no matter how horrible of character they have, and maybe that I will even ignore evidence to keep my imaginary worldview that men are always rational and right. But I'm not like that. Why are you provoking this argument? Why should I be interested in continuing this conversation?

Post 19

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 3:59pm