William Glasser (1981)
A recently published APA article listed in rank order the top 200 psychologists of the modern era, which means since WWII. The authors of the article emphasized that they wanted to systematically identify eminent psychologists. Eminent has to do with the degree of recognition, impact, and respect an individual has on the field. To do this they focused on three main criteria – citation metrics, textbook page coverage, and major awards.
Albert Bandura
Although not from the field of psychology myself, there were a number of names I recognized. Here is a sampling from the list of 200 –
#1 Bandura, Albert
#2 Piaget, Jean
#5 Seligman, Martin
#6 Skinner, B.F.
#7 Chomsky, Noam
#12 Rogers, Carl
#17 Allport, Gordon
#33 Bruner, Jerome
#52 Beck, Aaron
#74 Gardner, Howard
#134 Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi
#139 Dweck, Carol
Carl Rogers
So, you’re probably wondering, where is William Glasser on this list? Incredibly, to me, Glasser is nowhere to be found among the top 200 psychologists. Zilch. Nada. It doesn’t seem possible that he isn’t on the list. But maybe the criteria were not suited to him. The list seemed to honor psychologists who pursued that role as scientists. Someone more knowledgeable than me can probably provide a better explanation.
The reference for the article is –
Diener, E., Oishi, S., and Park, J. (2014, August 25). An incomplete list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psycholgy, Vol 2(1), pp. 20-31.
===============
In anticipation of my teaching a classroom management course this quarter, on September 6 I posted a blog inviting you to share the elements that you felt were essential in a class on classroom management. Many of you responded. More recently, on November 7, I posted a blog asking for advice on how teachers can effectively work with parents. Again, you responded. The reason I am mentioning this is that students in my class have been reading your posts and have responded to many of them. I encourage you to take a look at the responses that follow these two posts – September 6 and November 7 – and even consider responding to the students who wrote to you. Thanks again for your help on this!
The Better Plan . . 
Jim, I always enjoy reading your posts, but have had an increasing sense of urgency to find out how choice theory can find a place in my classroom. I am teaching students with emotional behavior disorders. I think that even my students can benefit from a better plan. Where would I start? Thank you for your attention, Carrie
I sent you an email. We can talk more.
It is strange Jim. I recall having asked you one time if Glasser and Carl Rogers had ever met, because their approach to helping human beings resolve personal and interpersonal difficulties, and move toward fulfilling lives seem so similar. Both went against the common beliefs and practices of their day – determinism and psychoanalysis – and they both wrote with such clarity about the individual’s ability to move toward a happier life in an honest, supportive environment. Without a doubt the two most influential books in my early working life as a freshman teacher in 1970 were Glasser’s “Reality Therapy” and Roger’s “On Becoming a Person”. Rogers phrase, “unconditional positive regard” has stuck with me from that day to this. In an interesting way (whole nother subject) it reinforced my changing view of God at the time as well. Interesting that one should be better remembered than the other, although i would imagine that there is a group of devoted Rogers adherents that are working to keep the memory of his work alive too.
I appreciate your thoughts on this. Glasser and Rogers did swim against the popular current and both believed in, as you say, “the individual’s ability to move toward a happier life.” I related, as well, to your spiritual views being affected or confirmed as you studied psychological beliefs and practices. It is interesting how all the different things in which we are involved personally, all of our beliefs and behaviors, must ultimately come into alignment with one another. We create or latch onto a paradigm or worldview that supports our beliefs. And the search goes on as we seek to refine the lens though which we see the reality around us.
Cheer up, Jim. They also missed Stanley Milgram, Solomon Asch, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Philip Zimbardo. (At least I didn’t see them on the list.)
I think that is where we all come in Jim. Look what the proponents of Darwinism have done for that science. It is up to those who feel as we do to move his theory forward into the 21st century and you have certainly done your part with that . I would also urge those who feel this way to look at the literature promoted by Candace Pert, Bruce Lipton et al who are working with molecular biology proving all that Glasser said about changing our theory to now be scientifically true. He was well ahead of his day but the truth is really now rising to the the forefront.
Thank you for the heads up on Pert and Lipton. Every week I see articles that in some way support Glasser’s approach, but I figure I am pretty biased and am on the lookout for such information.
Well it goes without saying doesn’t it that we all filter incoming information as it fits with our own belief system and naturally Glasser believers will be filtering in that same way. It is all wrapped up in what he said when he claimed “the power of the picture is TOTAL.” We will not only seek out what fits our picture but we will decipher and perceive incoming information in a way that fits our picture. This is why politicians and corporate leaders fall into hard and fast categories. But thankfully real science is now well and truly on our side. The tiny molecules of emotion have moved us closer and closer towards cooperation versus competition. Our planet will not survive unless we do and thankfully science is finally catching up.