transactional analysis

On getting triggered and transference

| jaylazzo

I learned yesterday about transference. This happens when you are triggered by someone’s behavior or words to act like a Child (emotional) or a Parent (authoritative) toward that person, recapitulating a similar exchange with a parent/authority figure or child that occurred in your past.

Image: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4LDET6VyjMU/sddefault.jpg

Transference is common; it is not always negative. For example, when a peer of mine talks about games, I tend to go into Child mode and deal with this person like another Child — we then get creative, finding joy in bouncing around new ideas. Negative transference can happen. Search for “triggered” or “karen” on Youtube to see what I mean.

Usually transference is not disruptive, even the negative ones. However, I know some colleagues who are so easily triggered that I avoid interacting with them outside of work.

So, how do we know transference is taking place? Let’s take a look at boss/subordinate relationships and start with transference behaviors exhibited by subordinates.

1. One is overly sensitive and selective with regard to what he pays attention to in the behavior of others.
2. One uncritically favors certain interpretations over possible others.
3. One’s responses to others can be traced to beliefs held about oneself, others, and the world.
4. One tends to behave in such a manner as to invite responses which are consistent with and confirm his expectations. Manipulation.

Here are examples of transference exhibited by one who is a boss.

1. He offers advice rather than listen to the subordinate’s experience. He does not leave much room for the subordinate to reflect and decide on her next action.
2. The boss inappropriately discloses personal experiences, stories about himself.
3. The boss doesn’t have boundaries with the subordinate.
4. The boss makes judgments related to his perspective, not the subordinate’s.
5. The boss pushes the subordinate to take action that she is not ready for.
6. The boss is too worried about the patient, as if he wants to save her.
7. Boss asks for irrelevant details and is overinvested in the subordinate’s story.
8. The boss wants to relate to or socialize with the subordinate outside of the professional setting.
9. The boss gets angry with subordinate over a belief they don’t agree with.

These same behaviors also manifest in transference between peers.

How can we deal with transference in the office?

Here are some strategies to address transference at work. These strategies apply whether you or another is experiencing the transference.

Be self-aware. Strive to recognize when you are experiencing transference reactions. This involves acknowledging and understanding your emotional responses to colleagues, which may be influenced by past experiences.

Maintain professional boundaries. Distinguish between personal emotions and professional conduct. Avoid allowing unresolved personal issues to affect work relationships or decisions.

Communicate openly, sincerely, and honestly. If you find yourself reacting strongly to a colleague or superior, consider discussing your concerns or feelings with them in a professional and non-confrontational manner.

Seek feedback. Encourage open dialogue and feedback from colleagues and supervisors. Their perspectives can provide valuable insights into any misunderstandings or miscommunications that may be fueled by transference.

Resolve conflicts. If transference leads to interpersonal conflicts, address them promptly and professionally. Engage colleagues who are experienced in resolving these.

Develop yourself professionally. Invest in personal and professional growth to enhance your emotional intelligence, communication skills, and conflict resolution abilities.

Seek therapy or counseling. If transference significantly affects your well-being or job performance, consider seeking professional help outside of the workplace. A trained therapist can help you explore the origins of your feelings and develop strategies for managing them.

Seek a mentor or coach. Find one from among experienced colleagues or supervisors. They can provide guidance, perspective, and support in navigating complex workplace dynamics.

Involve HR. If transference issues involve misconduct, harassment, or other violations of workplace policies, consider involving your organization’s Human Resources department. HR can provide mediation and guidance on resolving such issues.

Get some training in conflict resolution. Some organizations offer conflict resolution training programs to help employees develop skills for handling difficult workplace situations, including those related to transference.

Transference can also be made to work for us as a positive force. It can be challenging. Transference often involves powerful emotions and subconscious patterns, so turning it into a constructive force requires self-awareness and deliberate efforts. Here are some strategies to make transference work for you:

Begin by examining your own transference reactions. Understand your emotional triggers and patterns. Ask yourself why certain individuals or situations trigger strong emotional responses.

Identify a positive trigger. Sometimes, people may transfer positive feelings onto others based on past experiences. For example, if you have positive feelings or admiration for someone due to transference, channel those emotions into motivation for self-improvement. Use this admiration as a source of inspiration.

If you have a mentor or colleague you admire, you are probably being triggered in a positive way to seek guidance AND to follow it. Explain your admiration and desire to learn from them. They may be more willing to support your professional growth.

Still, transference is based on memories, not here-and-now data. Ensure that your expectations of others are realistic and not based solely on past experiences. Understand that people are individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses, and motivations. Embrace the diversity of people, their beliefs and their feelings. Recognize that everyone is unique, and that transference may not always be a reliable guide to understanding others.

Making transference work for you involves emotional intelligence, and a willingness to not play manipulative games.

Transference in the workplace is a common occurrence. Recognizing and addressing it in a constructive and professional manner is a skill worth mastering.

(Q.C., 231230)

Games people play

| jaylazzo

People who have a secure sense of “I’m OK, You’re OK” would rarely engage in duplicitous games.

Games are transactions in Transactional Analysis — dialogues, exchanges — designed to achieve negative feelings for all players. Why would anyone play a game like that? Because the negative feelings validate and reinforce one’s negative views about oneself, others, and life. Therefore, in a game at least one player is either himself Not OK or thinks of the other as Not OK or not worthy of being.

That said, a person who thinks of himself and other is OK will not play a game has no negative self image to validate.

How do games go? Will will see this in terms of the roles involved and the parts of a game.

What roles are involved? Three: Persecutor, Rescuer, and Victim. This doesn’t mean 3 players. If there are 2 players, one might be the Persecutor, the other the Victim.

I illustrate the general structure of a typical game, the Karpman Drama Triangle, in this blog: https://wordpress.com/post/jaylazzo.home.blog/3225.

The duplicity in this game lies in the fact that people are baited into it. There is the appearance of sharing, of asking for advice, of giving advice, but also the intent to hurt. The moment when this happens is the shift, e.g., when a Victim suddenly plays the role of Persecutor. A game could be going on for days before the shift happens. When it does, everybody feels bad. But the one who initiated the shift intended it this way to validate the negative image he has of himself.

Aside from validating a negative self image, one also gets recognition (or strokes), a negative one being better than none at all. And one gets it without the risk of intimacy. Intimacy is the opposite of a game: communications are open. Intimacy involves risks. The kind of people who are comfortable with risking disappointment and rejection are those who have a sense of worth that is not threatened. These are OK people. They don’t need games for validation or recognition.

Once they spot a bait initiated by their interacting partner, mature people may call out the duplicity or terminate the conversation. They have the strength of character ot refuse. Perhaps the only reason they will appear to play is that they are inexperienced or because they are gathering information.

Although all games like the Karpman Drama Triangle are duplicitous, some may be so benign they can be enjoyed. Canadia psychiatrist Eric Berne (1910-1970) has described one of these called Happy to Help:

In this game of two players called White and Black, “White is consistently helpful to other people, with some ulterior motive.  He may be doing penance for past wickedness, covering up for present wickedness, making friends in order to exploit them later or seeking prestige.  But whoever questions his motives must also give him credit for his actions.  After all, people can cover up for past wickedness by becoming more wicked, exploit people by fear rather than generosity and seek prestige for evil ways instead of good ones.  Some philanthropies are more interested in competition than in benevolence:  “I gave more money (works of art, acres of land) than you did.”  Again, if their motives are questioned, they must nevertheless be given credit for competing in a constructive way, since there are so many people who compete destructively.  Most people (or peoples) who play “Happy to Help” have both friends and enemies, both perhaps justified in their feelings.  Their enemies attack their motives and minimize their actions, while their friends are grateful for their actions and minimize their motives.  Therefore so-called “objective” discussions of this game are practically nonexistent.  People who claim to be neutral soon show which side they are neutral on.”

Other games are described here: https://ericberne.com/games-people-play/.

(Q.C., 231229)

On the Karpman Drama Triangle

| jaylazzo

This is how to play a psychological game known as the Karpman Triangle. It’s named after Stephen Karpman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle).

Anyone playing a psychological game must enter as Persecutor, Rescuer, or Victim. They are decribed below. Two people can play this, shifting roles along the way.

Image: https://www.listeningpartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Drama-Triangle-v1.jpg

Each role starts with a discount. The Persecutor discounts others’ sense of worth. The Rescuer discounts others’ ability to think for themselves and to act on their own resources. The Victim discounts his own ability to think and to solve problems.

At some point, someone switches. For example, from Victim to Persecutor.

We can now outline the Game Formula as follows:

Con + Gimmick = Response –> Switch –> Cross-Up –> Payoff

Always starts with a CON: a bait or a hook. Then follow up with a GIMMICK, i.e., weak spot or vulnerability, the button in the other that when pushed makes him buy the Con, leading to a RESPONSE.

Then the SWITCH, e.g., Victim –> Persecutor. The Switch grabs control through the use of confusion and surprise, called the CROSS UP. The switch is the essential part of the game, one might say its object: to hurt the others.

Then follows the PAYOFF, i.e., the negative emotions that everyone experiences as a result of playing the game. One might say these emotions are the object of playing the game.

Here’s an example:

Once upon a time, there lived three characters entangled in a curious dance called “The Karpman Drama Triangle.” Meet Victor, the Victim; Pam, the Persecutor; and Rachel, the Rescuer.

Victor, a sensitive soul, often found himself overwhelmed by life’s challenges. One day, he encountered Pam, a stern and critical neighbor, who constantly pointed out Victor’s perceived flaws and mistakes. Pam assumed the role of the Persecutor, placing blame and making Victor feel like the perpetual Victim.

Enter Rachel, a well-intentioned friend who couldn’t resist swooping in to rescue Victor from Pam’s harsh judgments. Rachel offered comforting words and advice, trying to shield Victor from the Persecutor’s relentless critiques. In doing so, she assumed the Rescuer role.

All of a sudden, however, Victor changed and began accusing Rachel of siding with Pam. What did Rachel say? Something to the effect that Pam’s actions were “objective observations”. Victor accused Rachel of being inconsiderate of his feelings and beliefs. As he attacked Rachel and his adrenaline flowed, he also attacked Pam, who being a strong woman didn’t give any shit. Rachel, however sought a Rescuer in Pam, who assumed that role to Rachel, now the new Victim. Everyone feels bad now.

At what point did the game start? When Victor baited Rachel. This isn’t the first time he played this game. He knows from past experience that at some point the Rescuer would point out flaws in his reasoning, using “objectivity”. He was waiting for just this point to spring the bait.

His objective? To underline the fact that everyone but him is wrong. Victor is trying to feel superior, because in truth he is so lacking in self esteem that he must play games like this to feel good, by making others feel bad. Quickly, however, he lapses back into misery as he realizes the feeling is short-lived; beside, Rachel has now distanced herself.

Psychological games are sometimes fun, but most of the time they cause much hurt. They could be a waste of time, except that they do reveal a lot about what’s going on in the minds of others.
My advice: don’t play, but if you are dragged into it, use it to get information.

But first, how you escape a game.

First, learn to spot Games. Learn to spot the Con. People like Victor are not that rare and the opening moves are similar.

Second, if you regularly participate in games it may be because you are either NOT Ok or think of others as NOT Ok; you discount as a Victim, Rescuer, or Persecutor.

Not wanting to play, and then having spotted the Con, you might either call the instigator out: “Are you playing a game?” or simply refuse further communication.

Be aware that a game player might try another game.

In the long term you might try replacing your discounts. So, instead of discounting as a Rescuer, show respect as a Teacher, who cares and respect other’s abilities while asserting your own needs. Trust that the desire to rescue Victims might come from not trusting them.

Instead of discounting as a Victim, respect yourself as a Survivor, vulnerable, but willing to ask for help, take advice, and make the needed sacrifices.

And instead of discounting as a Persecutor, show respect as a Challenger, assertive and firm, but not to punish, manipulate, shame or belittle.

Some notable players in my life.

1. Garfield. Loves the Victim role, and constantly criticizes others like a Persecutor. I avoid playing games with this guy, just give him facts and short responses, not to cut the conversation but to direct them along.
2. Amber. Perennial Rescuer, believes everyone has a problem that she could help with. I do not have the problems she claims. Disses other people at every opportunity.
3. Virginia. Normally a Challenger, extremely competent, But she occasionally explodes and turns everyone off. Highly competent professionally, but not many real friends.
4. Napoleon. Persecutor, always authoritative, dominant, critical and condescending. Hardly even smiles, is aloof from the friends he spends time with the most, but is congenial with the ones he sees occasionally. Always complaining.
5. Clark. Most of the time a Teacher, but tends to be Victim very easily. Feels himself persecuted by some people, and then becomes a Persecutor himself. The way he talks is offputting, actually. He is readily triggered, very sensitive.
6. Jack. Professionally, he knows his stuff. He is very talkative. In a table among friends you can always be sure he will try to dominate, regaling with lots of details (he has a powerful memory), with an air of authority. He likes predicates like “I told you so,” “Of course,” and similar definitive versions because he has an explanation for everything like many Rescuers. But he rarely asks genuine questions; YOU ask him the questions. I minimize social conversations with this guy. Professionally, however, very competent.
7. Steve. This guy has formal authority, but does not articulate clearly what he wants and so leaves many of his people confused. In my dealings with him he is more of a critique than a problem solver.
8. Vincent. Very smart. Always playful, and as a consequence, is not very orderly. People are complaining.
9. Augustine. This guy is losing his memory, is awkward, takes on a lot of tasks and is overwhelmed. Very balanced overall, but does not retain many details and for this reason can be tiring. A survivor.

I’m sometimes baited because of a service orientation I learned from my parents. But I’ve learned to be a little less nice, especially to Victims who find my helpfulness soothing. However, I have become more willing to trust that most people can deal with their dramas on their own.

(Q.C., 231228)

To live by the wrong rules

| jaylazzo

Transactional analysis (TA) posits that injunctions and counterinjunctions,early life messages often transmitted unconsciously from parent to child, influence an individual’s behavior and attitudes later in life. The concepts help in the analysis of communication patterns and interpersonal transactions.

What are injunctions and counterinjuctions?

  1. Injunctions:
    • Definition: Injunctions are restrictive or prohibitive messages received by individuals during their early years, typically from authority figures or caregivers (often parents). These messages shape a person’s beliefs about what is permissible or not, acceptable or unacceptable.
    • Types of Injunctions:
      • Don’t (Don’t Exist): Messages that deny a person’s right to exist or have needs.
      • Don’t Feel (Don’t Feel Anything): Messages that discourage expressing emotions.
      • Don’t Think (Don’t Think You Are Important): Messages that undermine one’s intellectual capabilities or self-worth.
      • Don’t Be (Don’t Be Strong/Don’t Be a Child): Messages that restrict a person from being themselves or fulfilling certain roles.
  2. Counterinjunctions:
    • Definition: Counterinjunctions are responses or strategies developed by individuals to cope with or rebel against the injunctions they received. These counterinjunctions can either reinforce the original injunction or serve as a defense mechanism.
    • Examples of Counterinjunctions:
      • I’ll Show You (I’ll Show You I Exist): A counterinjunction where an individual may rebel against messages of “Don’t Exist” by asserting themselves or engaging in rebellious behavior.
      • I’ll Feel However I Want (I’ll Show You I Feel): A response to messages of “Don’t Feel” by expressing emotions openly and refusing to conform to emotional suppression.
      • I’ll Think for Myself (I’ll Show You I’m Important): A reaction to messages of “Don’t Think You Are Important,” asserting intellectual independence and self-worth.
      • I’ll Be My Own Person (I’ll Show You I Can Be): A counterinjunction against messages restricting one’s identity, emphasizing independence and individuality.
This image of a man kept afloat by counterinjunctions also suggests that simply removing the counterinjunctions from his life without addressing the underlying injunctions could be just as disastrous. One has to get rid of the entire conditional. See discussion below. Image: https://i0.wp.com/howdidyoubecomeyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2744B5E8-4EF8-4538-AF7F-285F5B8C4BD6.jpeg?fit=930%2C1200&ssl=1

The presence of these messages can be inferred from the content and manner words delivered by interacting partners. Transactional analysts identify and challenge these messages to help individuals gain insight into their behavioral patterns and work towards more fulfilling and autonomous lives.

Messages can be true or false. Thus, counterinjunctions may be negative. To what extent can positive messages (counterinjunctions, permissions) be just as problematic as negative ones (injunctions)?

When they are false and conditional. Let’s illustrate the dynamic beginning with injunctions.

Injunctions are non-verbal or emotional conclusions reached by the child upon seeing and interpreting non-verbal or emotional messages that come from the parents speaking emotionally.

For example, when the child has broken an expensive vase he gets a disapproving look from his father, probably accompanied by verbal tirades and even a hard spanking. The child interprets this look as an injunction, a “Don’t” message. He might, for example, interpret his father’s look as “I wish you weren’t around,” or to simplify, “Don’t exist.” This is clearly a false conclusion, and painful.

The same child will also receive verbal messages emitted by authoritative side of its parents that serve to counter this injunction. “Behave, take care of the things in this house“, or to simplify, “Be perfect“. The child then combines this with the injunction to reach the conclusion “Be perfect, and you can exist.” This “rule” has the nature of a program. A child might conclude this early, say around the age of 7. That program can stay for life unless changed.

The program is false because it’s not possible to be perfect, a fact that becomes clear with every mistake. Furthermore, the conditional that if you are perfect you can exist is not only false because of an impossible premise; it is also illogical because one can be perfect and still be made to feel that one doesn’t exist, as with a child who is ignored no matter what it does.

Yet, the rule has consequences.

The child, now grown up, lives the rule “Be perfect and you can exist” and its variants “If I do things perfectly, I can exist“, or “If I do things perfectly I shield myself from the pain of feeling I shouldn’t exist.” The person rarely says this script out loud, but the script is there, and it will explain much of what that child does in his adult life.

Usually as a means to avoid pain. The only event that validates that statement is that the child is insulated from the pain, but this never really lasts. As long as the person is “perfect”, whatever that means to him, he feels a sense of worth; he is OK on the outside. He acts normally, he might even achieve great success. But when he fucks up, he no longer enjoys the protection perfection afforded. Surfacing again is the feeling that he is Not OK, not worth anything. He feels the pain of “Don’t exist.” And this will happen again and again because we all make mistakes.

If a mistake at the wrong time or is big enough, say, when he makes a big mistake up the eve of his marriage, he could become helpless, blame the world for his sad state, end up despairing about getting any help or improvement, and then not show up. Or perhaps kill himself.

When there really was no reason for any of that.

The only way out of this is to change the conditional into an unconditional “I’m OK regardless of what I do.” By challenging the entire conditional, this person is not so much shielded from childhood injunctions, which will not be erased from memory, but is strengthened to respond to their occasional surfacing.

A good sign that one is in the grips of a wrong counterinjunction is that his emotional states tend to fluctuate rather wildly: one day feeling great, next day feeling depressed. Or lively with colleagues, depressed with family. A lack of consistency in behavior, a lack of consistency in general suggest that one is living by rules that could be discarded.

We just have to consider that such rules have been used for years and that it might take a lot of sacrifice to discard them.

(Q.C., 231228)

On low self esteem as a vice

| jaylazzo

A goal of therapy in Transactional Analysis is to achieve an “I’m OK, You’re OK” state. This state describes a relationship where one considers oneself and the other as having worth. By extension, other groups also have worth: I’m OK, You’re OK, They are OK.

This is one of four life positions. In shorthand,

  • I+/U+: I’m OK, You’re OK
  • I+/U-: I’m OK, You’re NOT OK
  • I-/U+: I’m NOT OK, You’re OK
  • I-/U-: I’m NOT OK, You’re NOT OK

Each life position is formed through one’s childhood experiences, particulary through one’s dealings with one’s parents. As one exits childhood, one recalls these interactions and then decides on a life position that becomes like a theme. A child will not often articulate its life position, but most interactions the child will have all the way to adulthood will follow that theme.

A life position is a cognitive habit. Like any habit, it can be changed with some effort, conditioned by other elements of the personality, existing habits and vices, and one’s physiological state.

People who see each other as worthy (I+/U+) deal with each other as equals. Their interactions are free of manipulation and duplicity. They are not afraid of intimacy, or its risks in the form of hurts and disappointments. They express their ideas and debate them freely, even criticizing them in ways that are not taken personally. They express their true feelings without having to hide them with a substitute, more acceptable feeling. They also accept that the relationship might not last, and that permanence isn’t a requirement for entering a relationship in the first place.

People who see each other as worthy do not think it’s necessary that they enter into intimacy. As they are not attached to people, their freedom in this manner is intact. They may engage in rituals and pastimes, such as talking about the weather, feelings, and dreams, without the intimacy proper to friends. These surface exchanges help them gauge whether they would like to be friends and then choose relationships free of manipulation or duplicity.

The I+U+ state, however, is not the life position most people decide upon as they exit childhood. The most common state is “I’m Not OK, You’re OK“, that of the child who knows itself to be dependent (Not OK) on the support of a competent (OK) parent. Many continue to hold on to this life position thinking they are less worthy than others even as adults, leading to relations of dependency and lack of assertiveness, and positions of weakness masked by duplicitous displays of smugness and a contant search for validation. No matter how it may appear on the outside, a pervasive sense of not being worthy cannot be disguised for long.

However, as a child grows especially in a supportive environment, it learns skills and acquires knowledge. The child is able to solve problems using information in the here and now. In other words, without the baggage of memories of its NOT OK’ness. Certainly, the child will be recalling painful memories of its interaction with its parents, but it gradually is able to assign relevance to these memories in the light of present circumstances. The child becomes confident, with little need for strokes as there is no defect in its self esteem that it needs to soothe. Even feelings reminiscent of its Not OK childhood will be expressed or suppressed but under the control of the mature mind.

In other words, a child with proper support can redecide its life position, from “I’m Not OK, You’re OK” to “I’m OK, You’re OK“.

An important goal of therapy is to move people to this state. Aside from the I-/U+ are the I+/U- and the I-/U- positions. All Not OK positions imply at least one person in a relationship is not considered by the other to be worthy. Relationships where people don’t see each other as worthy are marked by duplicitous games and fake feelings. People who engage in games don’t deal with each other as equals, but instead take on roles such Rescuer, Persecutor, or Victim. The essence of a game is that one party in the interaction shifts its role suddenly, e.g., from Rescuer to Persecutor. Intimacy is feared and avoided, and developing true friendships is very difficult.

I said that a child “with proper support”. This implies that ridding oneself of Not OK habits of thought, beliefs, and behaviors could take some time. As with a vice, the feelings associated with feeling less worthy may be the more comfortable option.

Image: https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D12AQHB2VHn_4ImVQ/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1520176646848?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=phVTVOlAImv_1PnshALN7qzSeI5W_NsNrHLDjmH4mGA

Some people, for instance, fear happiness. Their “I’m NOT OK” position may be so comfortable and convincing that a show of esteem from another will be most uncomfortable. It is common for people with low esteem to have problems receiving compliments, for example. They may engage in validation-seeking behaviors to soothe the pain of not feeling worthy, and can spend years within abusive relationships that at least keep them in their comfort zone of NOT OK.

I found a clip on Youtube where this guy described a date he had with two girl buddies. The girls were both gorgeous and dressed about the same. One of them, however, became the object of numerous inappropriate advances by other men in the bar, while the other was not approached by anyone in that manner. Our guy reflected on why one of his friends was approached but not the other. He concluded that the first girl was subconsciously communicating her need for validation through her demeanor, tone of voice. The other girl had no need for validation and exuded an air of “I’m not to be messed with,” and so no one dared. People who are hungry for validation are perceived as “easy”, often in the bad sense of the word, while those who have no need for validation attract others who don’t need it either.

Is it a person’s fault that he or she attracts disrespect? Perhaps a person in his or her 20’s might be excused, but not one who’s older. Unless a person is mentally challenged, under the influence of drugs, or otherwise forced, behavior is almost always the result of a conscious choice even if we understand that behaving in the right way for someone not used to it can be extremely difficult.

And what choice is involved? Whether or not to give in to memories and feelings.

(Q.C. 230830)

What’s going on???

| jaylazzo

I had this recent experience. During a meeting one of my colleagues went into an emotional tirade. He was ranting against a collective decision made in a meeting where he was invited but did not attend. He questioned the decision, and implied that those who took part were incompetent.

Image: https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1405240710/photo/asian-men-manager-scold-and-angry-with-their-employee-inside-of-office-meeting-room-with.jpg?s=612×612&w=is&k=20&c=me7iDZEDTsOvrjRVxzNoiAlSBgUGt2_W3tJlAw4aWKg=

Some of us thought our colleague was really off somewhere.

Really off? This is the challenge, making sense of what’s going on in an exchange. What are people really trying to say? Behind the overt messages that we try to make sound rational are subtexts. We know these are the real messages, because we terminate conversations and even relationships when they are not recognized.

Discerning these subtexts is not hard if we had a model. The model I use is Transactional Analysis. First developed over 40 years ago, this psychoanalytic-based approach to the study of communications has since been validated by numerous studies.

The model posits that every person has an Inner Child and an Inner Parent, apart from the “manager” or the Adult who coordinates everything. Transactional Analysts are careful to point out that these three personalities are NOT objects, they are not three persons. Instead, they are thought of us modes or states that the same person expresses every time he or she communicates a thought or feeling. These ego states are observable, serving as pigeonholes to classify statements made.

Thus when I exclaim “Oh Wow!“, that classifies as having come from my Child mode or ego state. “We should always consult extraordinary expenses,” is coming from a Parent ego state. And when I say “Parking is full“, I’m making a statement of fact pertaining to the here and how, characteristic of the Adult ego state.

Without reducing the ego states to monotonic emotions, we may for convenience describe the Child as emotional, the Parent as judgmental, and the Adult as rational.

When we speak from a Parent ego state we usually communicate to a Child or a Parent ego state in our listener. “We shouldn’t be allowing students to use laptops in class,” is spoken by a Parent ego state to the listener’s Child ego state. The speaker considers the listener inexperienced, like a child.

“Hey, do you now what’s going on between Rob and Marta?” “Do tell!” Gossip is usually an exchange between two Parents. Think: what do mothers do while waiting for their kids to end their classes?

“Boss, can I leave early for work? It’s my son’s birthday.” This statement appears to come from a Child ego state. Children ask permission, and so the speaker is addressing himself to the Parent ego state of the boss.

“Dude, wanna grab a beer?” It’s a Child inviting another Child to have some fun.

“It’s getting late, we haven’t even finished half of what needs to be done,” just statements of fact about the here and now. No rules, no judgments, no feelings, this is a communication from an Adult state. Such communications are addressed to the Adult ego state of the receiver: the speaker assumes that his listener wants to hear just the FACTS.

The examples above are straightforward. But, not so fast. The real messages are often covert. They are revealed by tone, body language, and by the context itself.

“It’s getting late, we haven’t even finished half of what NEEDS to be done,” with the accent on NEED and delivered in the voice and intonation of the boss everyone hates is a Parent to Parent or Parent to Child communication.

What happens if I respond to that last statement with “What’s the deadline given by head office ANYWAY?” That looks like an Adult question, reasonable. But the accent suggests it is a Parent communication. Thus we have two Parents, and they are going to have fun the whole night trashing the boss, using outwardly rational, matter-of-fact Adult language.

My colleagues were discussing corporate matters in an Adult manner. When this eruption happened, it cut right through a smooth Adult to Adult exchange. The effect was silence. That’s what happens when one has a crossed communication. A crossed communication is shown with this diagram:

Boss asks: “You should have done that by now!” Employee answers: “Why are you talking to me in that tone of voice?” I’ve seen an exchange like this. It shut down the boss. Image: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318435780/figure/fig4/AS:631665600757776@1527612223181/Transactional-Analysis-Ego-States-Crossed-Transactions-Source-Bush-2015.png

“What just happened?” A crossed communication.

There’s more. The fact that this colleague exploded in this context revealed something about was going on his mind. A Parent to Child communication, mature to immature, manifests at least a temporary belief that “I’m OK, you are Not OK.” Temporary and only in one context. Does the consistently manifests this sentiment? If consistent, we may call it a life position.

There are three other life positions: “I am OK, You’re OK” (considered the most mature); “I’m Not OK, You’re OK“, and “I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK.”

If my colleague were a true “I’m OK, You’re Not OK” he would regularly manifest blaming behavior, often spiteful, triumphant, euphoric or furious. Come to think of it, he’s often like that even in a subtle way. He may be a very different person at home.

A life position that was “I’m Not OK, You’re OK” would manifest as depressive, guilt-ridden, worried, blank, or easily confused. These do not describe him at all.

If it were “I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK“, this would appear as a sense of futility and despair. He would show signs of being unloved, worthless, hopeless. Not him.

And if his position was “I’m OK, You’re OK“, there would be no feelings to characterize that. Which suggests that feelings are in the other life positions, which also suggests that the other life positions are not intrinsically bad or definitive. We express feelings all the time, so we tend to go through these positions, sometimes through all of them several times in the course of the day, without most of them defining us.

I, therefore, don’t equate these life positions as personalities or character. They are not in themselves moral faults. I prefer to think of them as transitional states and to not judge people rashly on the basis of their behavior.

Nonetheless, if a person manifests a life position consistently, one cannot help but wonder why. It seems that people tend to “prefer” a specific ego state because it is comfortable. It is also possible that they “decided” this was going to be their preferred state and therefore the basis for their script in life.

Imagine going around life with the tag “I’m OK, You’re Not OK.” Because it is a life script, most of this person’s interactions will be based on that position. And, indeed, my colleague tends to look down on others. He may have decided this was going to be the theme of his life based on childhood experiences. But being very intelligent and experienced, he also often manifests emotionless rationality — “I’m OK, You’re OK“. The combo looks like a movie plot.

Does his life script betray anything about his self image? It’s hard to be more specific than the generic “I’m OK, You’re Not OK“. This life position comes with a spectrum of options, from nice, highly confident people to lethal psychopaths. I do not think my colleague is psychopathic. I think he’s just hyperintelligent with many accomplishments. He is difficult to work with — he violently berates his secretaries on the phone — but he seems to be best placed in his current job. I know I wouldn’t go out with him socially.

My colleague is a guy. If he were a woman, I probably would have had a harder time making sense of it all.

Fortunately I found a blog that helps us guys interpret what women really mean. This is Gentleman’s Journal’s “dictionary” of what a woman says and what she actually means.

1. I’M FINE
I am most certainly not fine. I am upset/angry/annoyed or all of the above, but I’m not going to tell you why – you have to work it out for yourself.

2. WHATEVER, I’M OVER IT
I am not over it – I just want you and the rest of the world to think that I am so I can wallow in self pity in solitude with a bottle of white and large box of chocolates.

3. FINE, JUST DO WHAT YOU WANT
Not fine, don’t you dare do what you’re planning on doing. Or do… and suffer my wrath – your choice.

4. IT DOESN’T EVEN MATTER NOW ANYWAY
It does matter, it really matters actually, it matters more now than it did when it first happened and it’s affecting every single facet of my day this week.

5. I’M ON MY WAY/JUST RUNNING OUT OF THE DOOR/STUCK IN TRAFFIC
I’m currently sitting in my bath towel, with wet hair and no make-up and haven’t even chosen an outfit yet – see you in an hour… minimum.

6. I DON’T MIND
I do mind, I mind very much actually. I know exactly what I do want to eat/do/watch, but I’m going to test you. How well do you really know me? Now is your chance to read my mind and you better get this right first time, or you can expect a flurry of ‘fines’ and ‘whatevers’ for the rest of the evening.

7. HOW DO YOU KNOW HER?
What is your entire past history with that woman, sexual or otherwise? Should I be threatened and am I prettier than her?

8. I MEAN I COULD EAT
I’m absolutely starving, but I don’t want to say I’m starving because this implies I’m greedy and fat, so I need you to take charge right now and find me a restaurant and a bread basket asap.

9. SORRY, WHAT?
Oh I heard you, I heard you loud and clear, I’m just giving you a chance to change what you said.

10. I DIDN’T EVEN LIKE HIM THAT MUCH ANYWAY
I really liked him, in fact I think I was falling for him, but he hurt me and my pride and now I’m trying to a put on a brave face – hand me the vodka!

Source:
(https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/10-things-women-say-what-they-really-mean/)

(Q.C. 230912)

Transactional Analysis: When does “I’m OK, You’re OK” begin?

| jaylazzo

I started writing about Transactional Analysis (TA) last August 11, 2023 (https://wordpress.com/post/jaylazzo.home.blog/2983). In a general sense, I find this approach to be a fairly consistent model with applications in improving mental health, communications, and relationships. In that blog, I specifically used TA to explain the tendency of people to wear masks.

This next series of blogs will focus more on my reflections about Transactional Analysis itself. These will not so much be about the approach — a Google search will easily bring out many sites that are dedicated to explaining the science — but rather about my personal experiences and reflections.

In this blog I try to answer the question: In real terms, is it possible for an individual to conclude I+U+ by the end of their childhood.

The answer introduces the central concept of OKness.

What does it mean in Transactional Analysis for a person to conclude “I’m OK, You’re OK“?

First of all, OKness, the state of being OK, doesn’t mean feelings. Nor is it simple self-esteem. OKness is an “existential” judgment about one’s worth. Am I worthy as a person? That’s pretty loaded stuff, hard to define. It suffices at this point to say that if you’re OK, you have high self-esteem. This is not the same as self-confidence, which is worthiness on the basis of some status, knowledge, special skill, academic degree. Self esteem is simply the sense that one is worthy to even be, unconditionally.

Before the age of reason a child only feels in response to actual stimuli. And most of what it feels gives it a SENSE of itself as not being OK. The child is small, defenseless, doesn’t know how to operate the electric fan, doesn’t know when to share or not to share, etc. It takes an adult, an all-knowing, all-powerful, 6-foot tall adult to put things in order. That adult is OK; the child is the very opposite of that. And the child feels it. I said “feels”, because the child is unable to articulate or explain its NotOKness outside of crying or whimpering.

Image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DrEOF5a3Pps/WOfgchE4aCI/AAAAAAAADag/VUohfglfvH4yVLAWyprTdSZD2DTIO39jgCLcB/s1600/age%2Bof%2Breason.jpg

Then comes the age of reason. The “age of reason” is considered to be around the age of 7, maybe less. Prior to this age, a child is a “feeling” creature. The most advanced thinking skill it has is intuition, a kind of felt thought.

These feelings are responses to how the child is treated. The child doesn’t explain why it feels terrible about itself when it is violently abused by its parents, nor good about itself when it is showered with love. It’s sense of OKness depends on strokes.

All humans have a need for recognition, called strokes in TA. Children, particularly so. In fact, if an infant doesn’t receive enough physical contact in its first few hours or days it will die. Based on the strokes it receives, the child makes a judgment that grown ups are OK. Also, the child concludes that it is OK “IF”. IF I eat my cereals, mommy gives me a kiss and I feel good; otherwise she gets angry and I feel bad. It’s OKness is conditional.

This conditional feeling of worth may be based on positive strokes, but it is still conditional. An adult who retains a conditional OKness depends on what people say or do to him in order to feel good about himself. A child is like this by nature.

When the child reaches the age of reason, it may realize that it has worth regardless of how others treat it. The child makes an abstraction; that is what makes it a creature of reason. Mom is not here right now, but I KNOW she loves me. Another way of saying it is that the child’s OKness is no longer conditional on some actual condition. Detached from specifics, the child truly senses it is OK, unconditionally. It is an existential conclusion. That is, for a child that grows up without abuse and with the right stroking.

And what it has is a sense of OKness that, like the conditional one, can improve, become more rich, more stable. Its interactions with adults and other kids expose the child to information in the form of words, behaviors, and its own thoughts. Not only does mom NOT have to be present for me to feel good. I don’t need money, fame, good looks, millions of friends, to feel good. The child also makes moral conclusions, that lying is essentially wrong even when I don’t need to refer to a specific case of lying.

But things don’t always work this way.

Some children who have been deprived of strokes before the age of reason “feel” they are not OK and continue to feel this way, even think that way until adulthood, even for the rest of their life. The child may continue to see the grown ups and everyone else as OK or Not OK, particularly if the child has experienced only neglect and the bad feelings that went with it. Many mental health problems such as depression, psychosis, suicidal tendencies, actual suicides, and many others may have their roots in adults who continue to see themselves as NotOK.

Criminality may also arise in this manner. Some children, especially those who have been victims of the most violent abuse, will carry with them the experience of healing their wounds by themselves, and exit the childhood phase convinced that they can stand on their own while everyone is evil. The child has concluded, “I’m OK, You’re Not OK.” I’m right, you’re wrong. I’m human, you’re subhuman. The manifestation in an adult includes antisocial behavior, the extreme of which is murder and genocide.

Hence, although a precocious child might start to reason at a very early age, it doesn’t seem possible prior to the age of reason to conclude that it is OK (in the unconditional sense) and others are OK.

(Q.C. 230830)

The Law of Repression

| jaylazzo

Robert Greene describes the Law of Repression as the tendency to repress or suppress certain aspects of our personality or past experiences, particularly those that are negative or might paint us in a poor light. Social norms and the desire to be accepted play a role in this. However, these repressed emotions or memories don’t just disappear; instead, they influence our behavior in subtle and sometimes unpredictable ways. They can manifest themselves in our reactions, fears, and even the choices we make, sometimes leading to self-sabotaging behaviors.

Image: https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/09/collective-memory-martial-law.jpg

Transactional Analysis (TA) gives a perspective on this law. TA posits three ego states — Parent (P), Adult (A), Child (C) — where each ego state represents a consistent and coherent set of memories, beliefs, thoughts and observable actions. In particular, the P ego state contains recordings of past interactions with parents and parent figures, while the I ego state contains recordings of our feelings in response to those dealings. In TA, these memories are never erased, but they can be shut off.

A Ego State: This is our “here and now” state, processing information and making decisions without the baggage of past traumas or teachings. Ideally, this state would help mediate the other two, offering solutions that aren’t clouded by repressed feelings or outdated moral codes.

C Ego State: This part of our psyche replays childhood strategies, feelings, and experiences. Repressed emotions or traumas from childhood often reside here. For instance, if someone was frequently punished as a child, they might repress feelings of anger or sadness. These emotions might then emerge in adult life during moments of stress or conflict. If these emotions are mistaken to be facts pertaining to the reality of the present situation we say that the C has contaminated the A.

P Ego State: This part houses the messages we internalized from our parents or parental figures. Repression can also manifest here, especially if there were strict behavioral norms or moral codes enforced. Someone might suppress desires or behaviors that were deemed “bad” by their parents, only for these to emerge in different ways in adulthood. If these messages are mistaken to be facts pertaining to the reality of the present situation we say that the P has contaminated the A.

It is not contamination when the A is aware where the emotions and past messages are coming from. If the P and C are repressed the A might not be aware it is being contaminated.

In TA, repressed emotions or behaviors might emerge when an individual “switches” or cathects ego states in response to a stimulus. For instance, someone might generally operate from their Adult ego state but switch to their Child state in moments of high emotion. Cathexis is not a problem in a well-adjusted person, i.e, whose A state is able to mediate the messages from the other two ego states. But if either the P or C is repressed cathexis could be shocking for its abrupt and unexpected nature.

While the Law of Repression isn’t a principle of Transactional Analysis in the same direct manner as in other psychological frameworks, the idea of repressed emotions influencing current behaviors is certainly present. Through ego state analysis and other TA tools, one can uncover and address these repressed issues.

Examples of repression and the surprising emergence abound in daily life.

Personal Relationships. Someone who was constantly criticized as a child might repress feelings of inadequacy. When they enter a romantic relationship as an adult, these feelings can resurface in the form of jealousy or insecurity and then taken for objective fact, even if their partner gives no reason for such feelings.

Work Environment. Imagine someone who was bullied in school and has repressed feelings of anger and resentment. Later in life, in a professional setting, they might overreact to criticism or perceive slights where there are none, viewing colleagues as “enemies” even in a collaborative environment.

Decision Making. A person who experienced financial instability in their childhood might repress their fears about money. As an adult, they might become overly cautious or excessively reckless with finances, driven by those deep-seated fears they haven’t addressed.

Here are a three approaches from Transactional Analysis to manage the Law of Repression: stroking redecision, and script analysis. The aim is to become self aware. The first step is to recognize which ego state one is operating from and identifying patterns of behavior or response. Recognize the signs when you’re reacting that they may represent repressed feelings rather than the current situation. Writing about your feelings and experiences can offer clarity. Over time, you might start to see patterns or triggers that point to deeper, repressed issues.

Note that it is not always possible or even desirable to identify the exact situation in the past that are being repressed. It is more important just to realize that the A state can moderate these feelings and messages, perhaps even using them effectively as data in reasoned thought.

Stroking. In TA, a stroke is a basic unit of recognition. Positive strokes can help an individual address and move past repressed emotions by providing positive reinforcement or feedback.

Stroking encompasses both verbal and nonverbal communication acts of recognition, validation, or attention that we give and receive from others. It’s a fundamental aspect of human interaction and is used to describe the way individuals seek and exchange social and emotional recognition.

In the context of TA, strokes can be positive (affirming and validating) or negative (disapproving or critical), and they play a significant role in shaping a person’s self-esteem, sense of identity, and overall psychological well-being. Strokes can be physical (like a hug or a pat on the back), verbal (compliments or comments), or even non-verbal (smiles, nods, eye contact, etc.).

Here are a few key points about strokes in Transactional Analysis:

  1. Stroke economy. People have a basic need for strokes, and they will seek out or generate strokes to fulfill this need. The exchange of strokes is often described in terms of “stroke economy.” Individuals will engage in behaviors that elicit the type of strokes they desire, whether it’s seeking praise or attention, or even engaging in self-destructive behaviors to garner negative strokes if they’re feeling neglected.
  2. Stroking patterns. Stroking patterns can be formed early in life based on the interactions an individual has with caregivers and significant others. These patterns can influence a person’s behavior, relationships, and emotional well-being. For instance, someone who grew up receiving primarily negative strokes might develop a tendency to seek out negative attention as adults.
  3. Stroking and relationships. Strokes are a critical aspect of interpersonal relationships. Positive strokes contribute to building rapport, trust, and a sense of connection. However, negative strokes can also have an impact on relationships, sometimes leading to conflicts or distancing.
  4. Awareness and choice. Individuals in therapy are encouraged to become aware of their stroking patterns, both in terms of seeking and giving strokes. This awareness allows them to make conscious choices about their behavior and interactions with others.
  5. Strokes and script. A “cript refers to a person’s life plan or narrative, often influenced by early decisions and experiences. Stroking patterns can be related to the scripts individuals adopt, reinforcing or challenging certain aspects of their life stories.

Stroking can provide insights into how people interact, why they seek certain types of attention, and how these dynamics influence their psychological well-being and relationships.

Redecision therapy. This is a branch of TA that focuses on helping individuals “redecide” behaviors or feelings based on outdated or repressed information.

Redecision is a therapeutic process in which individuals revisit and change decisions they made during their childhood that have been influencing their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and life patterns in negative ways.

A decision is a significant conclusion or belief that a person forms based on their experiences, often during childhood. These decisions can become ingrained and continue to shape a person’s attitudes and behaviors throughout their life. Redecision involves identifying these early decisions and then consciously re-evaluating and modifying them to create healthier and more adaptive life patterns.

Redecision typically involves the following steps:

  1. Identifying early decisions: The therapist works with the individual to identify key decisions they made during their formative years that might be contributing to their current struggles or conflicts.
  2. Challenging old decisions. These early decisions are examined critically to determine whether they are still valid or beneficial in the person’s current life circumstances. Often, these decisions are outdated or based on incomplete information.
  3. Revising decisions. The individual is guided through a process of reevaluating and rewriting these early decisions. This might involve imagining alternative scenarios or considering different perspectives on the events that led to those decisions.
  4. Integration. Once the individual has revised their early decisions, they work on integrating these new perspectives into their self-concept and identity. This integration process can lead to increased self-awareness, personal growth, and positive behavioral changes.

Redecision aligns with the broader goal of helping individuals gain insight into their patterns of behavior, improve their relationships, and develop a healthier sense of self. By recognizing and modifying old, often limiting decisions, individuals can transform their lives by making more conscious and adaptive choices.

Script Analysis. Everyone has a life script, which is a sort of unconscious life plan based on childhood experiences. By analyzing this script, one can uncover repressed emotions or traumas that are influencing present-day behavior.

Script analysis explores and understands an individual’s life plan or narrative, often developed during childhood, that guides their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and interactions throughout their life. It’s a way of examining the underlying patterns and decisions that shape a person’s identity and guide their choices.

A script is the unconscious life plan that a person develops based on their early experiences, particularly significant events and relationships. This script becomes a template that influences how they perceive themselves, others, and the world around them. Script analysis seeks to uncover the hidden beliefs, decisions, and patterns that are at the core of a person’s psychological makeup.

Here are some key components of script analysis in Transactional Analysis.

  1. Early decisions. Script analysis involves identifying significant decisions and conclusions made during childhood that continue to influence a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. These decisions are often formed in response to critical events or interactions with caregivers and significant others.
  2. Drivers. Eric Berne (1910-1970), the founder of Transactional Analysis, identified a set of common negative life drivers that often shape people’s scripts. These drivers include messages like “Be Perfect,” “Try Hard,” “Be Strong,” and “Please Others.” These drivers influence a person’s behavior and can lead to repetitive patterns.
  3. Parental and Cultural Influences. A person’s script is often influenced by the beliefs, values, and behaviors of their parents or primary caregivers. Cultural and societal norms also play a role in shaping a person’s script.
  4. Redecision. Script analysis often leads to the concept of redecision (see above), where individuals have the opportunity to consciously reevaluate and modify the decisions they made earlier in life. This process allows them to challenge and change patterns that are no longer serving them well.
  5. Strokes and Games. Script analysis is closely tied to the concepts of strokes (social and emotional recognition) and games (repetitive, often dysfunctional patterns of interaction). Understanding one’s script can shed light on why certain games are played and why individuals seek particular strokes.
  6. Transformation. The goal of script analysis is to help individuals gain insight into their unconscious patterns, understand how these patterns are influencing their lives, and make conscious choices to change and reshape their script. This process can lead to personal growth, improved relationships, and a more fulfilling life.

Script analysis is a powerful tool for self-discovery and personal development. It allows individuals to examine the origins of their thoughts and behaviors, challenge unhelpful patterns, and create a more authentic and fulfilling life story.

The Law of Repression points out that we all have hidden aspects of ourselves that influence our behaviors. By recognizing and addressing these shadows, we can attain a greater understanding of ourselves and navigate life with greater authenticity and clarity.

Next up, the Law of Grandiosity.

(Q.C. 230816)

The Law of Self-sabotage

| jaylazzo

Robert Greene describes the Law of Self-sabotage as what happens when internal conflicts and unconscious biases lead individuals to act against their own best interests.

Image: https://community.thriveglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/self-sabotage.jpg

The Law of Self-sabotage suggests that often, due to unresolved internal conflicts, negative self-talk, or deeply ingrained beliefs and fears, people can sabotage their chances of success and happiness. This law underscores that many of our biggest obstacles are self-created and highlights the importance of deep self-awareness to avoid such self-defeating behaviors.

As I’ve been researching a little more intensively on Transactional Analysis (TA), I put here an example, explain self-sabotage from the point of view of TA, and suggest interventions. The analysis is made on two levels: structural (looking at the contents of Parent, Adult, and Child), and functional (looking at their behaviors, specifically through scripts and games).

Image: https://kingamnich.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-Psychology-of-Self-Sabotage-%E2%80%94-The-Self-Plotting-Against-The-Self-819×1024.png

The Case. Sophia has been working hard in her job and has the opportunity to present her project to the company’s board. However, despite having sufficient time to prepare, she procrastinates until the night before the presentation. Consequently, she doesn’t perform well, and the board doesn’t approve her project. Jane feels defeated and believes she’s not good enough for promotions or major responsibilities.

Analysis using TA: Structural

  1. Parent Ego State:
    • Jane might have internalized critical messages from authoritative figures in her past (e.g., parents, teachers) that she’s not good enough or that she doesn’t deserve success.
    • These messages now form her “Critical Parent” voice that tells her she will fail or shouldn’t even try.
  2. Adult Ego State:
    • This is the rational, data-processing part of Jane. The Adult ego state knows that with adequate preparation, she can do well in the presentation.
    • However, if not strong enough, the Adult can be overshadowed by the Parent and Child states.
  3. Child Ego State:
    • The “Adaptive Child” within Jane might feel overwhelmed and anxious about the presentation, leading her to avoid the task.
    • Alternatively, the “Rebellious Child” might resist the pressure to perform and thus deliberately procrastinate.

In this scenario, Jane’s self-sabotage (procrastination and poor performance) is a result of her Child ego state acting out based on past experiences and beliefs reinforced by her Parent ego state. The immediate relief of avoiding preparation is a short-term gain for the Child ego state but leads to long-term pain and reinforces negative self-concepts.

Intervention using Transactional Analysis: For Jane to overcome this pattern, she could:

  1. Strengthen her Adult Ego State: By seeking factual evidence of her capabilities and past successes, she can counteract the negative beliefs she holds about herself.
  2. Dialogue with the Parent Ego State: By identifying and challenging the source of the negative beliefs (e.g., “Who told me I’m not good enough?”), she can begin to separate outdated messages from her current reality.
  3. Nurture the Child Ego State: Addressing the fears and anxieties of the Child ego state is crucial. This might involve self-reassurance, seeking external support, or breaking tasks into manageable parts.

Analysis using TA: Functional

We now look into the behaviors of those three states, specifically in terms of scripts and games in Transactional Analysis:

Scripts. A script in TA is a life plan, decided in childhood, influenced by parental messages, and reinforced by experiences. This script dictates how a person lives their life, including their patterns of decision-making, relationships, and self-worth.

  1. Jane’s Life Script: Given her reaction to the situation, Jane might have an underlying “I’m not good enough” or “I’ll fail” script. This script might have originated from negative messages she received during childhood about her capabilities or worth. The opportunity to present to the board may activate this script, leading her to act in ways (procrastination) that make the script’s outcome come true.
  2. Script Reinforcement: Every time Jane procrastinates and then faces negative consequences (like the board’s disapproval), her script gets reinforced. It strengthens the belief in her narrative of “See, I knew I couldn’t do it.”

Games: In TA, a game is a series of transactions that lead to a predictable outcome. This outcome often confirms a person’s life script. Games are repetitive patterns of behavior that may seem irrational but serve to reinforce an individual’s script. Jane might be playing the Wooden Leg game.

A little more about the Wooden Leg game

The “Wooden Leg” game is a classic example of how individuals might use an external excuse or perceived limitation as a justification for not taking responsibility or for failing to achieve certain tasks or outcomes. The name “Wooden Leg” refers to a clear and obvious disadvantage, like having a wooden leg, but it can represent any number of self-perceived limitations or weaknesses.

Game Description:

  1. Starting Position: The individual, often operating from the Child ego state, presents a limitation or an excuse for why they cannot do something or why they performed poorly. This limitation (e.g., “I have a wooden leg“) is offered as the main reason they can’t meet a particular standard or expectation.
  2. External Response: People around the individual, often responding from the Parent ego state, might feel compelled to be understanding, compassionate, or lenient due to the presented limitation. They might say, “That’s okay, considering you have a wooden leg.”
  3. Game Payoff: The individual successfully avoids responsibility or lowers expectations due to the perceived limitation. They feel justified in their inability to meet the standard or achieve the task.

Underlying Dynamics:

The “Wooden Leg” game serves several psychological purposes:

  1. Avoidance of Responsibility: By focusing on the limitation, the individual avoids taking responsibility for their actions or inactions.
  2. Validation of Script: If the individual’s life script contains beliefs like “I’m not capable” or “I’m always at a disadvantage,” the game reinforces and validates this script.
  3. Gaining Sympathy: The game allows the player to receive sympathy, care, or lowered expectations from others.

Critique:

While it’s crucial to acknowledge and accommodate genuine limitations, the “Wooden Leg” game uses these limitations as consistent crutches to avoid responsibility or growth. Over time, this can limit personal development and maintain unhelpful life scripts.

In the context of therapy or self-growth, recognizing and challenging the “Wooden Leg” game can be a step toward taking more responsibility and seeking growth beyond self-imposed limitations.

Thus, we describe Jane’s game.

  1. Jane’s Game of “Wooden Leg”: The dialogue of this game might go:
    • Critical Parent: “You should be preparing for this presentation; it’s important.”Rebellious Child: “I can’t do it now. I need the right mood, and besides, I’ve always struggled with presentations.” Adaptive Child: “I’m too stressed to start now; I’ll do it later when I feel better.” Critical Parent: “Alright, we understand.”
    The predictable negative outcome is that Jane is unprepared and fails to impress the board. By playing this game, Jane reinforces her script of “I’m not good enough” or “I’m destined to fail.”
  2. Game Payoff: The payoff for Jane in playing this game, although seemingly negative, can be a reaffirmation of her life script, thus providing a perverse sense of rightness or familiarity. For example, Jane might feel a sense of relief thinking, “I knew I’d mess up. I always do.” Jane is winning at her game. It provides a sense of security because it’s a narrative she’s known and lived with for a long time.

Intervention using Scripts and Games:

  1. Recognize the script: Jane needs to identify and challenge her life script. Through therapy or self-reflection, she can trace back the origins of her “I’m not good enough” narrative and work on changing it.
  2. Disrupt the game: Once Jane recognizes the games she plays, she can work on interrupting them. Instead of giving into the “Wooden Leg” excuses, she can use her Adult ego state to question the script, counter the procrastination, and start her preparation early.
  3. Seek external feedback: By seeking feedback from trustworthy colleagues or friends, Jane can start getting an objective perspective on her capabilities and challenge her internal script.

Self sabotage is fairly common.

Procrastination at work or in school. An individual might delay starting a project or assignment due to an underlying fear of failure. Even if they’re fully capable of completing the task successfully, this internal resistance can lead to unnecessary stress, last-minute rushes, or missed opportunities.

Repeating unhealthy relationship patterns. Someone might consistently choose partners who don’t treat them well because of deep-seated beliefs about their self-worth. Despite consciously desiring a loving, respectful relationship, their unconscious patterns lead them towards unsatisfactory or toxic relationships. Again, they are winning at it, and the way out is to decide to redefine “winning”.

Avoiding opportunities due to fear: A person might be offered a promotion or a chance to lead a significant project but decline due to imposter syndrome or fear of increased responsibility. Their internal beliefs about their capabilities hinder their career advancement.

Here are some ways to manage the Law of Self-sabotage.

Reflect on one’s self. I provided TA as a tool that works, and this has been shown through numerous clinical research studies. Self-awareness could be achieved through meditation, journaling, or therapy.

Challenge negative self-talk: Become aware of the negative scripts in your mind and actively work to identify and challenge the games you might be playing.

Set clear goals. By having clear and actionable goals, you can develop a focused approach that diminishes the chances of getting sidetracked by self-sabotaging behaviors. This is what redefining “winning” means.

Be kind to yourself. Recognize that everyone has flaws and makes mistakes. Recognize that some of those flaws are deep-seated and automatic, having come from your parents and authority figures, and your emotional reactions as a child. Recognize that these are memories, and that you are able to question their current relevance.

Visualize success. Visualizing positive outcomes can help combat fears and resistances that lead to self-sabotage.

See professional help. If self-sabotaging behaviors are deeply ingrained or causing significant distress, consider seeking therapy or counseling.

By understanding and implementing the Law of Self-sabotage, individuals can recognize their internal barriers and work towards a more fulfilling, self-aligned life path.

Next up, The Law of Repression.

(Q.C. 230815)