luni, 22 martie 2010

Julie Hay - trainer AT

Julie Hay FCIPD, consultant, coach, supervisor, author of numerous books, packs, audiotapes and articles, internationally accredited as Teaching & Supervising Transactional Analyst (Organisational and Educational) and internationally licensed NLP Trainer.

Julie runs transactional analysis programmes, regularly in the UK and the Ukraine and elsewhere on an ad hoc basis, for those seeking international professional certification in transactional analysis. She is a past president of the international and European TA associations, was a vice chair of the UK ITA and inaugural Chair of the UK IDTA.

In 2009 Julie has set up two new international networks - International Centre for Developmental TA - ICDTA and International Centre for Developmental Super-Vision ICDSV - click on the links for more information. She is also the inaugural editor of the new EATA International Journal for Transactional Analysis Research launched in 2009 (Inaugural issue due out summer 2010 - see EATA webpage for Call for Papers).

A particular area of interest is coaching and mentoring. Julie was a founder member and also President 2006-2008 of the European Mentoring & Coaching Council. Julie and several of her colleagues offer consultancy for setting up coach/mentoring schemes as well as one to one coaching. Julie also works with a small number of coaching clients - please contact us for details.

Julie runs occasional NLP programmes on demand (you need a group of 9) that can lead to licensing as Practitioner and Master Practitioner by Richard Bandler.

Julie also specialises in designing and running assessment and development centres and has several publications available, including sets of simulations and a development game.

joi, 18 martie 2010

Curs introductiv in Analiza Tranzactionala AT 101




Curs introductiv in Analiza Tranzactionala AT 101

Tot ceea ce ai vrut sa stii despre Analiza Tranzactionala si despre cum sa devii un bun specialist in domeniu!



Perioada de desfasurare: 27-28 martie 2010, intre orele 09:00-18:00

Locul de desfasurare: Policlinica Profilaxis, str. 1 Decembrie nr. 106, Timisoara.

Trainer: Dr. Bogdan Serbanescu (PTSTA - Organizational)



International Center for Transactional Analysis (ICTA) va invita sa participati la cursul oficial de introducere in Analiza Tranzactionala AT 101, sustinut in Timisoara de catre Dr. Bogdan Serbanescu (PTSTA - Organizational) primul formator roman in Analiza Tranzactionala, acreditat de catre Asociatiile Europeana si Internationala de Analiza Tranzactionala. In acest eveniment Dr. Bogdan Serbanescu (PTSTA - Organizational) va fi supervizat live de catre Julie Hay (TSTA-O, E), specialist international de marca in domeniul organizational si educational.

Workshop-ul este sustinut in limba romana, cu traducere simultana in limba engleza pentru Julie Hay.

Termenul limita de inscriere: 25 martie 2010.
Pentru inscriere si informatii suplimentare, astept mailurile voastre pe adresa atgroup_timisoara@yahoo.com .


Vrei sa devii un bun psihoterapeut sau un specialist organizational competent?
Vrei sa cunosti si sa intelegi mai multe despre ce insemna AT si care sunt beneficiile pe care le obtii in urma aplicarii AT in munca ta?
Vrei sa comunici eficient cu cei din jur?
Vrei sa stii care este sistemul de valori care sta la baza AT ?
Reflecteaza asupra acestor intrebari, si daca raspunsul la oricare din ele este DA, atunci vino la acest workshop si vei intalni caldura sufleteasca pe care prietenii adevarati ti-o pot oferi!
Vom avea parte si de distractie jucandu-ne impreuna cu conceptele AT in exercitiile interactive din cadrul cursului , exersandu-ne fiecare abilitatea de a fi "numarul 1" (sau protagonistul) in cadrul aplicatiilor!


Acest curs este recomandat persoanelor care activeaza in domeniile organizational, educational, psihoterapie si consiliere, precum si celor care vor sa utilizeze AT pentru dezvoltarea personala.
De asemenea, cursul de baza AT101 este necesar sa fie parcurs de catre fiecare persoana care se formeaza in AT, indiferent de domeniu.
Acest curs se organizeaza odata pe an.

Participantii care doresc sa obtina supervizare de la Julie Hay in legatura cu aspecte privind munca lor, au aceasta oportunitate in partea finala a fiecarei zile de training. Obtinerea supervizarii este conditionata de participarea la curs şi de plata taxei de supervizare, 160 lei.

ICTA organizeaza in Romania cursuri oficiale de AT de 9 ani, si ofera un program de formare variat, sustinut de numerosi formatori straini certificati international. In Romania, ICTA colaboreaza cu Asociatia Romana de Analiza Tranzactionala (www.arat.ro) pentru a asigura un cadru adecvat profesionistilor care practica AT.

Cursurile ICTA sunt recunoscute de catre:
· Colegiul Psihologilor din Romania (CPR)
· Federatia Romana de Psihoterapie (FRP)
· Asociatia Romana de Analiza Tranzactionala (ARAT)
· Asociatia Europeana de Analiza Tranzactionala (EATA)
· Asociatia Internationala de Analiza Tranzactionala (ITAA)

Colegiul Psihologilor din Romania (Comisia de Psihologie Clinica si Psihoterapie, si Comisia de Psihologia Muncii si Organizationala) acorda psihologilor cu atestat de libera practica 10 credite pentru participarea la acest curs.
Se acorda o singura diploma cu 10 credite pentru fiecare participant, in functie de specialitatea psihologica a atestatului cursantului.

Taxa de curs:
- 200 lei pentru studenti
- 250 lei pentru celelalte categorii de participanţi
- 300 lei pentru participanti din partea firmelor
- 160 lei pentru supervizare si participarea ca observator.

Modalitati de plata:
· prin virament bancar, in contul SCPP CIUCUR & CIUCUR, Banca Transilvania, Timisoara, Cont: RO80BTRL03601202N41568XX, cu mentiunea "AT101"
· la sala de curs, Sambata 27 martie, intre orele 08:30 si 09:00

Codependent Relationship & NLP Perceptual Positions

Codependent relationship positions are about being stuck in one place without the flexibility to move - That's why it feels like a trap.

Actually, the NLP Perceptual Positions listed here are very healthy ... IF the person using them has the ability to move flexibly and choicefully out of one position and into another.



First Position

- When you associate into your own body, you are in first position.

- You look, feel, and hear the world from your own viewpoint.

- In first position, you do not take into account any one else’s position... You simply think, "how does this conversation or communication affect ME?"

- Healthy use of First Position is called Self-Awareness... it's the position I must take to discover what I want, what I need, who I am in this situation or relationship - i.e, the Child Ego State.

- When the Externalizer gets stuck in first position s/he operates from the Angry/Defiant Child Ego State and assumes the Persecutor role, thinking and feeling in highly narcissistic, "all-about-me" ways.

- When the Internalizer gets stuck in first position s/he operates from the Vulnerable Child Ego State and assumes the Victim role, thinking and feeling in highly dependent, "I'm helpless-hopeless-or-worthless" ways.

Second Position

- Healthy use of Second Position is called Empathy... This position offers one much flexibility when involved in conflict with another person. It's also extremely valuable for deepening rapport with others. This is the focus of the Parent Ego State

- This means stepping into the other person shoes... Taking into account how an event or communication would look, feel, and sound from another person’s point of view - as if you where using their eyes and ears (associated into their body).

- Imagine you’re entering the other person’s body, in this position you imagine looking at yourself through their eyes... What do you look like, sound like, and what feelings you get from the other person’s view point of you

- When the Externalizer gets stuck in second position, s/he operates from the Critical Parent network and takes the role of Persecutor in the Drama Triangle.

- When the Internalizer gets stuck in second position, s/he tends to become other-centered and takes the role of Rescuer in the Drama Triangle.

- He or she "caretakes" a Victim from either the Critical Parent Ego State...re-enacting the parenting s/he got as a child or a Projected Nurturing Parent Ego State...an attempt to experience the healthy parenting s/he did not get herself as a child.

Third Position

- Dissociated from the entire event or conversation, adopting an independent observer role allows us to gain a new perspective... "how would this conversation/event look, sound, and feel to someone totally uninvolved?"

- Imagine yourself being out of your body and off to the side of the conversation between you and the other person, you can see both yourself and the other person..."those two over there". Its a good way to "step out of" an emotionally intense situation. (Dissociated)

- Healthy use of Third Position is called Objectivity, or in Alanon terms it's referred to as "Detachment" when used in a healthy way... such as emotionally detaching from dysfunctional behaviors like those of the Drama Triangle. In TA terms, it's the Adult Ego State.

Third Position is a good position from which to study yourself and your relationships. Think of it like being a bird in the corner of the room watching those two down there...or an innocent bystander watching those two strangers over there with curiosity.

- If we get stuck in the third-position we tend to intellectualize and analyze situations...so that we become so dissociated from our body and emotions that we seem more like robots than people (the computer role).

- Stuck in Third Position is the position of the the Emotionally absent or Disengaged partner, typical of many Externalizers in a codependent relationship.

- They stay in the Adult Ego State to distance or block themselves from the painful emotions of the Vulnerable Child or the volatile emotions of the Angry Child.

- Stuck in Third Position is also the position of "Impression Management" or "What Would Other People Think" Syndrome, typical of many Internalizers in a codependent relationship.

They tend to stay primarily in the Vulnerable Child Ego State where they fully experience their fear of more abandonment and so must manage the impressions of others. Saying NO is difficult causing a lack of adequate boundaries.

Fair Fighting Rules

Fair fighting is a frank and open discussion of differences, without shouting or violence.
It follows strict rules to keep the exchange fair and peaceful. Ideally, a fair fight ends by
reaching a mutually agreeable solution.
Fair fighting springs from three key attitudes:

1. Conflict is inevitable. Partners in intimate relationships always want different
things. There’s no avoiding it, and it’s okay. You need to acknowledge that each
of you is an individual, with your own needs, desires, opinions, tastes,
preferences, fears, and goals.

2. Our needs are equally valid. We both want things that are natural, reasonable,
and understandable. Just because we want different things doesn’t mean that
either one’s needs are more important or significant that the other’s. You need for
rest and privacy is just as important as my need for entertainment and
companionship.

3. We can both win. Working together, we will come up with compromise solutions
to our problems. We can get a good measure of what we want without depriving
or taking advantage of the other.

Fair Fight Rules

1. Set a time. Secure your partner’s agreement to have a serious discussion. If your
partner doesn’t want to fight right now, you should set a time in the very near
future. At first you may encounter resistance and may have to be very persistent
to set aside a definite time.

2. State the problem. Say what your partner does or doesn’t do that you don’t like.
By describing the facts of your partner’s behavior, you can avoid blaming.

3. Stick to one issue. You can only solve one problem at a time. When you’re
arguing, it’s very tempting to change the subject or rake up the past. Resist the
impulse and confine yourself to a single issue, in the present.

4. Express the full range of feelings. Use “I” messages to express how you feel
about what your partner does or doesn’t do that you don’t like. Say “I feel mad”
rather than “You make me mad.” And look beyond irritation and anger to
describe your full range of feelings.
Expressing feelings is not the same as “dumping” feelings. Dumping is when you
raise your voice, blame, or make threats when you’re angry. Expressing feelings
is describing the feelings without a lot of emotional heat or attacking language.

5. Propose change. State clearly, simply, and directly what you want your partner
to do or not do. Be specific. Avoid talking in terms of attitudes, as in “I want you
to be more considerate.” Instead, state your objective in behavioral terms: “I
want you to come right away when I say it’s time for dinner and talk to me at the
table instead of reading the newspaper.”
6. Describe consequences. Describe any practical, emotional, financial, health, or
other benefits of the change you are proposing. Also include how you’ll feel and
what you’ll do if the change is not made. But beware of making empty threats or
predicting dire consequences out of proportion to the problem.
7. Prevent escalation. There are three things you can do to prevent escalation;

(1)Watch nonverbal behavior, (2) breathe deeply to slow down the pace of the
exchange, and (3) declare a “time out.”

First stay aware of the nonverbal part of every fight. Watch for danger signals
voices getting louder, threatening gestures, a shift from sitting to standing,
pointing fingers, clenching fists, a book slammed down or other objects tossed
around or broken, fast pacing, shoving, and so on.
Second, as soon as you notice that you are getting excited, stop talking and take a
deep breath. Just turn away from your partner, inhale deeply into your abdomen,
and release the breath slowly and completely in a big sigh. Suggest that your
partner do the same to calm down. You are literally “taking a breather.” It calms
you down and buys time to think about the rules of fair fighting.

If taking a breather to buy time doesn’t work, call a formal “time out.” Time out
has very specific rules:
a. Agree in advance on a signal, such as the T sign that professional sports
referees use to call time out during a game.
b. No last words. As soon as one person call time out, you both stop talking
immediately.
c. Leave immediately. The person who called time out leaves the room or,
ideally, the house. If you’re in a car or some other place you can’t leave,
stop talking for a set amount of time. A time out should last about an
hour. Stay out of each other’s presence the whole time.
d. Always return when time’s up.
e. Don’t use drugs or alcohol during time out.
f. Don’t rehearse what you should have said or are going to say. This will
just keep you upset. If possible, get some physical exercise during your
time out.
g. Check in when you get back. See if this is a good time to resume the
discussion. If either of you is still to upset to continue, set a time in the
near future to talk again.

8. End in agreement, counter proposal, or postponement. Some fights end in
simple agreement: You state your case, propose a change, and your partner says
okay. More often, there is further discussion, and your partner makes a counter
proposal for a change that is more acceptable.

You talk over the counter proposal and perhaps reach a compromise. Or perhaps
not … Many a successful fight ends with no agreement beyond the promise to
fight fairly again. That’s all right. There are many issues that cannot be resolved
quickly.


Adapted From
Messages: The Communication Book - by Matthew McKay, Martha Davis, and Patrick
Fanning. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1995.

Psychological Defense Mechanisms - A Scenario

Okay...Now that we've laid a foundation we can play around with how these defense mechanisms work in regards to Ego States -- Lets say a little boy or girl was not allowed by his/her parents to express anger in any way without serious risk of abuse...



Intra-personally - S/he would have to repress those emotions which would eventually lead to a wholesale disowning of his or her Angry/Defiant Child Ego State.

The lack of connection with his or her Angry/Defiant Child is likely to result in an inability to be assertive or speak-up for him/her self -- it's our anger that gives us the power to do that.

It's likely to result in this person frequently regressing into their Vulnerable Child who is scared, timid, and unable to set boundaries.

S/he may even compound his/her sense of powerlessness with moderate-to-severe introjected Critical Parent messages by way of self-talk.

Inter-personally - S/he is prone to finding a mate who is "stuck" in his or her Angry/Child Ego State so s/he can consciously experience his/her subconscious anger through projection ...this may be the only way someone stuck in Second Position can experience certain parts of themselves.

Their angry/critical mate knows how to "dance the dance" of the Drama Triangle taught to them by their angry/critical parents.

Psychological Defense Mechanisms & Ego States

Psychological defense mechanisms are maneuvers employed by the subconscious mind to protect and serve our various ego states -- These become the dynamics of our relationship with self.

Subconscious conflicts between neural networks are mediated by psychological defense mechanisms reduce the anxiety created by these conflicts:

Subconscious Defense Mechanisms and Neural Networks



Since the human brain has complexity there are "multiple minds" known in Transactional Analysis as Ego States. It follows that each of these Ego States... or neural networks... have their own preferred set of psychological defense mechanisms.

In order to look at how these Ego States interact and influence each other we need to define the following two terms...

-Interpersonal - concerning relationships between people
-Intrapersonal - concerning relationships between aspects (parts) of self... a relationship with self requires more than one player!
Many of us have heard this statement before -- "In order to have a good relationship with others we must first have a good relationship with our self".

The first time I heard this statement it intuitively made sense to me but I didn't know why -- Now I do...

1. I must develop enough self-awareness to understand how all my parts are "configured" -- how they get along with each other -- in order to create a good relationship between my parts. And...
2. However the various parts of myself interact or "get along with" each other... Intrapersonally... will influence and affect how I interact with others... Interpersonally.

In other words, however my parts get along with each other and your parts get along with each other will determine how well our parts play together.


Psychological Defense Mechanisms & Ego States -- Various Configurations

Adult Ego State - In a healthy adult, the Adult is the primary ego state for making decisions, solving problems, getting the job done and other executive functioning. In healthy adult relationships it's also the primary ego state for interpersonal functioning.

Occasionally, in intimate relationships it's healthy and important to use the psychological defense mechanism of regressing into the Natural Child ego state so they can play together.

At other times it's healthy to move into Parent ego state to provide nurturing and support to a friend or partner who is in a Child -- for example, during times of grief and loss.

Adapted Child Ego State - The "Parent-in-the-Child" is the neural network that "adapted" to the dysfunction of the family... A child is born into the world with all the Natural Child qualities and psychological defense mechanisms.

The child in a less-than-nurturing family must use psychological defense mechanisms to adapt because it's not okay to ask directly for what you need, express certain feelings, or break certain unspoken rules.

The Adapted Child learns, by way of the Little Professor, how to "configure" or arrange the following ego states and psychological defense mechanisms to get it's needs met.

Being necessary for survival, these defensive maneuvers were appropriately termed survival skills. While useful and necessary during childhood, survival skills do not make good substitutions for the coping skills of a healthy adult human being.

Critical Parent Ego State - The Critical Parent ES is that network that has recorded on it all of the childhood messages of parents and other authority figures -- in other words an Introject.
Many of the messages were assimilated (accepted as part of self)... "look both ways before you cross the street". Others were "taken in" but not assimilated (introjects) because they created limitations and barriers to intimacy..."don't talk, don't trust, don't feel".

These are also known as Injunctions in TA language.

Most of us alternate between being an Internalizer and an Externalizer but we tend to fall closer to one end of the continuum than the other.

Internalizers tend to turn their critical parent messages inward to create (Introjection) and perpetuate what we know as low self-esteem and negative self-talk.

Externalizers turn their CP messages outward (Projection) to create and perpetuate what we know as grandiosity or narcissism. These characteristics of self-centeredness (aka "Big Ego") are created by the psychological defense mechanism of reaction formation.

Angry/Defiant Child Ego State - The Angry/Defiant Child is the network that developed somewhere in the modeling period between 9 and 13 years old...usually closer to 12 or 13. It's the part of us that learns to resist and endure abusive, hurtful behavior from others.

If we grew up in a family where expressions of anger or defiance were strictly prohibited, it was important to repress our Angry/Defiant Child ego state. Another term for this is disowning a part of ourself.

Repressing our Angry Child frequently results in the polarizing effect of strengthening our Vulnerable Child -- another reaction formation.

With a Pronounced Vulnerable Child and a Repressed Angry/Defiant Child it becomes difficult, it not almost impossible, to set healthy boundaries and protect ourselves -- our anger helps us set our boundaries so we can maintain our separateness or autonomy.

Vulnerable Child Ego State - The Vulnerable Child is the network that developed during the the imprint period -- 1 to 7 years old...usually between 3 and 6 years old.

If we grew up in a family where tears, crying, and other expressions of vulnerability were prohibited then we had to learn to repress, or disown, our Vulnerable Child ego state.

Repressing our Vulnerable Child frequently results in the polarizing effect of strengthening our Angry/Defiant Child -- again, a reaction formation.

With a Pronounced Angry/Defiant Child and a Repressed Vulnerable Child it becomes difficult to feel compassion and empathy for others -- Our ability to be vulnerable allows us to let the walls down so we can connect emotionally to others in a healthy way.

Little Professor Ego State - The "Adult-in-the-Child", aka the Little Professor, is that smart, intuitive, creative and manipulative part of us that helps the Adapted Child learn how to get what it needs.

When we grow up in a less-than-nurturing family the Little Professor is the neural network that works behind the scenes to gather and store data about what works and what doesn't work.

If you've ever seen Candid Camera or any other show where they interview little kids about life...then you have seen the Little Professor in action. The kids can be hilarious because there is usually quite a bit of accuracy to their intuitive but far out answers.

The Little Professor is the network that later branches out and expands into the Adult... They are both "computers", but the Adult has data in the form of experience and wisdom on the hard-drive -- All the Little Professor has to go on is instinct and intuition.

The Adult and Little Professor make a good team when creativity is needed - such as designing new amusement park or roller coaster ride.

It's the Little Professor, with feedback from the environment, that configures the above childhood ego states...survival is its prime directive so whatever it takes to survive will become habits that follow us into adulthood.

When a trigger comes along, the appropriate ego state is activated. The program for that situation runs automatically and right on cue...with all the feelings, beliefs, attitudes, defenses and experiences of that part of self.

TA & the Drama Triangle - From http://www.internet-of-the-mind.com/fear_of_abandonment.html#drama



The Victim: This player gets their needs met by having other people take care of them. They tend to blame others for what’s wrong in their lives and play the "why don’t you, yes but" game or the "I can’t do that, because" game.

Victim Ego States...

Stuck in First Position the Victim vacillates between the feelings of the Vulnerable/Needy Child and the Angry/Rebellious Child - One moment expressing helplessness and hopelessness...the next throwing a temper tantrum.
When the Victim can't get someone to persecute them, they turn their own Critical Parent inward and persecute themselves. When they can get someone to persecute them, perhaps by playing a game of "Kick Me", they can feel fully justified in their Victim role.
The Rescuer: Due to an underlying fear of abandonment, the Rescuer needs to be needed and so they attach themselves to a Victim... Rescuers frequently notice that others always come to them with their problems and don’t know why they do that.

The Rescuer subconsciously helps keep the Victim dependent on them by playing into their Victimhood - doing everything for that person rather than allowing them to experience that they can do it for themselves.

Rescuer Ego States...

Stuck in Second Position the Rescuer has to be "all-about-others"...This person usually spent much of their childhood care-taking or unsuccessfully trying to please a wounded parent...doing for parent what they needed the parent to do for them (role reversal).
As an adult, the roles are switched - the Rescuer is the adult now and spends her/his time care-taking and trying to please a Projected Vulnerable Child...

Being stuck in second position, one way the Rescuer can experience his/her vulnerable child is to project that ES onto someone else.

It goes something like this...The Rescuer projects their Vulnerable Child onto the person they see as the Victim... they then over-identify with the Victim and feel compelled to step in to "fix" or "rescue".

In this way the Rescuer is vicariously and compulsively trying to meet the unmet needs of their own Projected Vulnerable Child. So...ironically...compulsive care-taking of others, then, is really "all-about-me".

The Rescuer also spends considerable time in the Critical Parent ES...though not usually in an outward fashion. Instead the Rescuer's Critical Parent sends subconscious messages like this to the Victim..."Don't worry, I know that you're incompetent and you need me to take care of you."
When things go wrong the Rescuer can turn that Critical Parent on him/her self...minus the nurturing tone - "You can't even take care of a simple little problem like that! What good are you?" In this case the CP is likely to be an introject (a recording of one of their own parents - called Introjected Critical Parent).

Rescuing is a covert Victim role when the Angry/Defiant Child protests... "Look at how I have to sacrifice and take care of everyone else!" or "I'm only trying to help and this is the thanks I get for it!"
The Persecutor: Stuck in First Position this player is "all-about-me" and externalizes their contempt through shameless and blameless behavior.

In the same way the rescuer points their Critical Parent recordings inward - toward themselves... the Persecutor primarily Projects their Critical Parent recordings outward - toward others... "If all these other stupid people would do things my way the world would be a much better place!"
Persecutors tend to disown their Vulnerable/Needy Child by subconsciously pushing it out of their awareness - i.e., repression. However, the Victims Vulnerable/Needy Behavior triggers that same ES in the persecutor.
The Persecutor's angry and critical responses to the Vulnerable Child in the Victim are subconscious re-enactments of how s/he drove his/her "disowned" Vulnerable Child into hiding...

In this way, the Persecutor is projecting his/her own Vulnerable Child onto the Victim. So...again, ironically... the Persecutor is actually talking to a part of him/her self whenever they persecute.

Another Persecutor ES is the intrusive, Angry/Defiant Child who really believes..."If it weren't for you I wouldn’t have to act & feel this way!" - a covert Victim role because it is an attempt to make the Victim responsible for the Persecutor's own loss of control.

Fear of Abandonment, Ego States, & the Inner Children

Fear of abandonment is almost always a direct result of feeling or being abandoned at some point in childhood. This real or perceived abandonment is traumatic to children causing fragmentation's of the Self.

The study of Ego States through TA and Structural Analysis led to what has widely become known as Inner Child Work. Dr. Charles Whitfield was the original pioneer who lead the way with his Book, "Healing the Child Within".

Many more therapists, including John Bradshaw, have contributed greatly to the evolution of Inner Child Therapies. The "Inner Child" or "Inner Children" are metaphors for the neural networks that store the essence of the child who suffered emotional trauma and fear of abandonment.

TA's Second Order Structural Analysis offered the first real "Mapping" of these networks. As I mention many times in these pages -- The Internet-of-the-Mind consists of neural networks... embedded in networks... embedded in networks... and so on.

Introducing the Wounded Inner Children...



The Child ES - specifically the Adapted Child - is the primary location of the accumulated trauma. Here we have ego-states... embedded in ego states... embedded in ego states.

The Critical Parent ES contains all the critical parental messages given to the child. The younger a child is the more receptive they are to these messages...referred to as Injunctions in TA language.
The Angry/Defiant Child is the neural network for the eight to twelve year-old part of us that contains all the thoughts, feelings, attitudes and coping style of that time in our lives.
The Vulnerable Child is the ES of the one to seven year-old part of us that carries all the woundedness, trauma and fear of abandonment from our childhood.

This is the part of us that Bradshaw and Whitfield speak of that has "gone into hiding" deep inside. In other words, it has been repressed or "disowned" by the subconscious mind in order to protect us from the pain and fear of abandonment it carries.

The main problem with repressed and disowned parts of self is that they don't stay repressed...they get triggered just like any other part of self. When they do is when we have "reactions" that are grounded in fear of abandonment.

The Six Personality Adaptations






- Creative Daydreamer -
- Brilliant Skeptic -
- Charming Manipulator -
- Playful Resister -
- Responsible Workaholic -
- Enthusiastic Over-Reacto -

- ENTHUSIASTIC / OVER-REACTORS learn early in life that they get most of their strokes as children for being cute, delightful and loving. They don't get credit for their thinking capacity and consequently tend to discredit their capacity to think deeply, clearly or productively. But keeping others happy is a behavior that they can engage in without a great deal of thought and still get the maximum number of strokes from others.

- ENTHUSIASTIC / OVER-REACTORS tend to mistake feelings for reality. They have rather shallow emotions that they can deepen by thinking about their situation.

- ENTHUSIASTIC / OVER-REACTORS need to learn that they can stop and think about their situation, that feelings aren't facts, and that they can get fully in touch with their anger (which usually is squelched). They also need to learn that running away from a situation doesn't serve them well and that they can advocate for getting their own needs met (rather than just meeting others' needs.) They need to know that they can be lovable and competent.

- ENTHUSIASTIC / OVER-REACTORS need for others to stroke and encourage their independent and insightful thinking, and to challenge any cons about their perceived marginal capacity to think clearly.

- ENTHUSIASTIC / OVER-REACTORS are at their best when they recognize that keeping the whole world isn't possible and that stopping and thinking clearly about their situation is much wiser counsel.

miercuri, 17 martie 2010

Karpman drama triangle


The drama triangle is a psychological and social model of human interaction in transactional analysis (TA) first described by Stephen Karpman, which has become widely used in psychology and psychotherapy.
The model posits three habitual psychological roles (or roleplays) which people often take in a situation:
The person who is treated as, or accepts the role of, a victim
The person who pressures, coerces or persecutes the victim, and
The rescuer, who intervenes out of an ostensible wish to help the situation or the underdog.
(Note that the rescuer role is one of a mixed or covert motive, not an honest rescuer in an emergency; see below)
As the drama plays out, people may suddenly switch roles, or change tactics, and others will often switch unconsciously to match this. For example, the victim turns on the rescuer, or the rescuer switches to persecuting.
The covert purpose for each 'player' is to get their unspoken psychological wishes met in a manner they feel justified, without having to acknowledge the broader dysfunction or harm done in the situation as a whole. As such, each player is acting upon their own selfish 'needs', rather than acting in a genuinely adult, responsible or altruistic manner.
The game is similar to the melodrama of hero, villain, and damsel in distress (such as Dudley Do-Right, Snidely Whiplash, and Nell Fenwick).
In TA, the drama triangle is sometimes referred to[1] in the context of mind games such as: – Why Don't You/Yes But; If It Weren't For You; Why does this Always Happen to Me?; See What You Made Me Do; You Got Me Into This; Look How Hard I've Tried; I'm Only Trying to Help You; and Let's You and Him Fight.


Overview and theory

A "game" in Transactional Analysis is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), ulterior, and proceeds towards a predictable outcome. Games are often characterized by a switch in roles of players towards the end. The number of 'players' may vary.
Games in this sense, are devices used (often unconsciously) by a person to create a circumstance where they can justifiably feel certain resulting feelings (such as anger or superiority) or justifiably take or avoid taking certain actions where their own inner wishes differ from societal expectation. They are always a substitute for a more genuine and full adult emotion and response which would be a more appropriate response.
Three quantitative variables are often useful to consider for games:
1.Flexibility: The ability of the players to change the currency of the game (that is, the tools they use to play it). In a flexible game, players may shift from words, to money, to parts of the body.
2.Tenacity: The persistence with which people play and stick to their games and their resistance to breaking it.
3.Intensity: Easy games are games played in a relaxed way. Hard games are games played in a tense and aggressive way.
Based on the degree of acceptability and potential harm, games are classified into three categories, representing socially acceptable games, undesirable but not irreversibly damaging games, or games which may result in drastic harm. Their consequences may vary from lots of small paybacks (the girl who keeps meeting nice guys who ditch her) through to payback built up over a long period to a major level (ie court, mortuary, or similar). Each game has a payoff for those playing it. The antithesis of a game (that is, the way to break it) lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.
The first such game theorized was Why don't you/Yes, but in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other player(s) (Black) would offer solutions. White would point out a flaw in every Black player's solution (the "Yes, but" response), until they all gave up in frustration. The secondary gain for White was that he could claim to have justified his problem as unsolvable and thus avoid the hard work of internal change; and for Black, to either feel the frustrated martyr ("I was only trying to help") or a superior being, disrespected ("the patient was uncooperative").
In the Drama Triangle, the 'switch' is then when one of these, having allowed stable roles to become established, suddenly switches role. The victim becomes a persecutor, and throws the previous persecutor into the victim role, or the rescuer suddenly switches to become a persecutor ("You never appreciate me helping you!").
Note that the "game" position of Rescuer is distinct from that of a genuine rescuer in an emergency, such as a firefighter who saves a victim from a burning building or a lifeguard who saves a victim from drowning. When played as a drama role, there is something dishonest or unspoken about the Rescuer's attempts, or at best, a mixed motive or need to be a rescuer or have a victim to help. The rescuer plays the role more because they are driven to be a rescuer than because the victim needs their involvement.

Examples

An example would be a welfare caseworker whose official function is to get clients off welfare and to support themselves with jobs. If the caseworker does anything to prolong the dependency relationship, she is not really helping but "Rescuing."
There may be subtle or overt pressure from her agency not to have too many successful clients. Threatening to cut off benefits to obviously lazy or selfish clients would be frowned on—even if or especially if such tactics resulted in clients suddenly finding gainful employment after years of dependency.
For the drama triangle to come into full flower, one of the players must shift positions. For example, a Victim may become a Persecutor complaining of getting too much help, not enough help, or the wrong kind of help. A Rescuer may become a Persecutor, complaining that the clients don't appreciate her enough.
Officials at the welfare agency may take a role in the game, Rescuing staff and clients as long as they play along quietly but Persecuting any staff who start showing good results.

In conversation

A more familiar example might be this fictitious argument between John and Mary, a married couple. Sometimes the rescuer point seems calm and even reasonable. If the words placate, soothe, calm, explain or justify, it can be considered a Rescuer response—it is an attempt to move the other person from their position.
In order to give a visual of the way the participants move from one point of the triangle to another, the Persecutor position is shown in bold characters, the Rescuer in italic characters and the Victim in normal characters.

John: I can't believe you burnt dinner! That's the third time this month!
Mary: Well, little Johnny fell and skinned his knee, it burned while I was busy getting him a bandage.
John: You baby that boy too much!
Mary: You wouldn't want him to get an infection, would you? I'd end up having to take care of him while he was sick.
John: He's big enough to get his own bandage.
Mary: I just didn't want him bleeding all over the carpet.
John: You know, that's the problem with these kids! They expect you to do everything!
Mary: That's only natural, honey, they are just young.
John: I work like a dog all day at a job I hate...
Mary: Yes, you do work very hard, dear.
John: And I can't even sit down to a good dinner!
Mary: I can cook something else, it won't take too long.
John: A waste of an expensive steak!
Mary: Well maybe if you could have hauled your ass out of your chair for a minute while I was busy, it wouldn't have gotten burned!
John: You didn't say anything! How was I supposed to know?
Mary As if you couldn't hear Johnny crying? You always ignore the kids!
John: I do not, I just need time to sit and relax and unwind after working all day! You don't know what it's like...
Mary: Sure, as if taking care of the house and kids isn't WORK!

Anyone reading this article could undoubtedly continue this argument indefinitely.
What is of perhaps more interest is how one can remove oneself from the triangle, which, as the example makes clear, can be exhausting.
The simplest method is the passive response. This works at any point no matter what the role the other person is taking, as it doesn't give a cue as to the next response:
Mary: Well maybe if you could have hauled your ass out of your chair for a minute while I was busy, it wouldn't have gotten burned!
John: Yes, that's true.
Although Mary may attempt to restart the cycle by continuing to scold, if John continues in the same vein, Mary will eventually run out of things to say. Unless Mary is actually abusive, in which case care should be used in employing this method, John's calm response invites discussion rather than continued wrangling. She might realize that she didn't ask him for help, and they might well be able to resolve the situation by planning on a course of action should something similar arise in the future.
It works just as well for the victim role:
John: I do not, I just need time to sit and relax and unwind after working all day! You don't know what it's like...
Mary: I'm sorry you're feeling so tired.
This acknowledges any real problem the other person might have without continuing the dance. Again, the other person may attempt to restart the cycle by continuing to complain, but again, with continued passive responses, the other person will run out of things to say.
While the "rescuer" role is seemingly the least problematic of the three points of the triangle, it still is a part of a non-communicative cycle, and thus should be treated in the same manner.
Mary: That's only natural, honey, they are just young.
John: Yes, they are young.

Once again, the cycle is broken, and John has made it clear to Mary that he needs no further placating or assistance. Other examples for passive responses include:
"Oh."
"I see."
"You may be right."

TA and popular culture

Eric Berne's ability to express the ideas of TA in common language and his popularisation of the concepts in mass-market books inspired a boom of popular TA texts, some of which simplify TA concepts to a deleterious degree[citation needed].
One example is a caricature of the structural model, where it is made out that the Parent judges, the Adult thinks and the Child feels. Most serious TA texts, including those aimed at the mass market rather than professionals, avoid this degree of oversimplification.
Thomas Harris's highly successful popular work from the late 1960s, I'm OK, You're OK is largely based on Transactional Analysis. A fundamental divergence, however, between Harris and Berne is that Berne postulates that everyone starts life in the "I'm OK" position, whereas Harris believes that life starts out "I'm not OK, you're OK". Many transactional analysts[citation needed] have regarded Harris as too far removed from core TA beliefs to be considered a transactional analyst.
New Age author James Redfield has acknowledged[20] Harris and Berne as important influences in his best-seller The Celestine Prophecy. The protagonists in the novel survive by striving (and succeeding) in escaping from "control dramas" that resemble the games of TA.

Games and their analysis


Definition of game

A game is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), ulterior, and proceeds towards a predictable outcome. Games are often characterized by a switch in roles of players towards the end. Games are usually played by Parent, Adult and Child ego states, and games usually have a fixed number of players; however, an individual's role can shift, and people can play multiple roles.
Berne identified dozens of games, noting that, regardless of when, where or by whom they were played, each game tended towards very similar structures in how many players or roles were involved, the rules of the game, and the game's goals.
Each game has a payoff for those playing it, such as the aim of earning sympathy, satisfaction, vindication, or some other emotion that usually reinforces the life script. The antithesis of a game, that is, the way to break it, lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.
Students of transactional analysis have discovered that people who are accustomed to a game are willing to play it even as a different "actor" from what they originally were.

Analysis of a game

One important aspect of a game is its number of players. Games may be two handed (that is, played by two players), three handed (that is, played by three players), or many handed. Three other quantitative variables are often useful to consider for games:
- Flexibility: The ability of the players to change the currency of the game (that is, the tools they use to play it). In a flexible game, players may shift from words, to money, to parts of the body.
- Tenacity: The persistence with which people play and stick to their games and their resistance to breaking it.
- Intensity: Easy games are games played in a relaxed way. Hard games are games played in a tense and aggressive way.
Based on the degree of acceptability and potential harm, games are classified as:
- First Degree Games are socially acceptable in the players' social circle.
- Second Degree Games are games that the players would like to conceal, though they may not cause irreversible damage.
- Third Degree Games are games that could lead to drastic harm to one or more of the parties concerned.

Games are also studied based on their:
- Aim
- Roles
- Social and Psychological Paradigms
- Dynamics
- Advantages to players (Payoffs)

Contrast with rational (mathematical) games

Transactional game analysis is fundamentally different from rational or mathematical game analysis in the following senses:
- The players do not always behave rationally in transactional analysis, but behave more like real people.
- Their motives are often ulterior.

Some commonly found games

Here are some of the most commonly found themes of games described in Games People Play by Eric Berne:

-YDYB: Why Don't You, Yes But. Historically, the first game discovered.
-IFWY: If It Weren't For You
-WAHM: Why does this Always Happen to Me? (setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy)
-SWYMD: See What You Made Me Do
-UGMIT: You Got Me Into This
-LHIT: Look How Hard I've Tried
-ITHY: I'm Only Trying to Help You
-LYAHF: Let's You and Him Fight (staging a love triangle)
-NIGYYSOB / NIGYSOB: Now I've Got You, You Son Of a Bitch
-RAPO: A woman falsely cries 'rape' or threatens to - related to Buzz Off Buster

Berne argued that games are not played logically; rather, one person's Parent state might interact with another's Child, rather than as Adult to Adult.
Games can also be analysed according to the Karpman drama triangle, that is, by the roles of Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer. The 'switch' is then when one of these having allowed stable roles to become established, suddenly switches role. The Victim becomes a Persecutor, and throws the previous Persecutor into the Victim role, or the Rescuer suddenly switches to become a Persecutor ("You never appreciate me helping you!").

Why Don't You/Yes But

The first such game theorized was Why don't you/Yes, but in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other player(s) (Black) would offer solutions (the "Why don't you?" suggestion). This game was noticed as many patients played it in therapy and psychiatry sessions, and inspired Berne to identify other interpersonal "games".
White would point out a flaw in every Black player's solution (the "Yes, but" response), until they all gave up in frustration. For example, if someone's life script was "to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die" a game of "Why Don't You, Yes But" might proceed as follows:
White: I wish I could lose some weight.
Black: Why don't you join a gym?
W: Yes but, I can't afford the payments for a gym.
B: Why don't you speed walk around your block after you get home from work?
W: Yes but, I don't dare walk alone in my neighborhood after dark.
B: Why don't you take the stairs at work instead of the elevator?
W: Yes but, after my knee surgery, it hurts too much to walk that many flights of stairs.
B: Why don't you change your diet?
W: Yes but, my stomach is sensitive and I can tolerate only certain foods.

"Why Don't You, Yes But" can proceed indefinitely, with any number of players in the Black role, until Black's imagination is exhausted, and she can think of no other solutions. At this point, White "wins" by having stumped Black. After a silent pause following Black's final suggestion, the game is often brought to a formal end by a third role, Green, who makes a comment such as, "It just goes to show how difficult it is to lose weight."
The secondary gain for White was that he could claim to have justified his problem as insoluble and thus avoid the hard work of internal change; and for Black, to either feel the frustrated martyr ("I was only trying to help") or a superior being, disrespected ("the patient was uncooperative").
Superficially, this game can resemble Adult to Adult interaction (people seeking information or advice), but more often, according to Berne, the game is played by White's helpless Child, and Black's lecturing Parent ego states.

"Drunk" or "Alcoholic"

Another example of Berne's approach was his identification of the game of "Drunk" or "Alcoholic." As he explained it, the transactional object of the drunk, aside from the personal pleasure obtained by drinking, could be seen as being to set up a situation where the Child can be severely scolded not only by the internal parent but by any parental figures in the immediate environment who are interested enough to oblige. The pattern is shown to be similar to that in the non-alcoholic game "Schlemiel," in which mess-making attracts attention and is a pleasure-giving way for White to lead up to the crux, which is obtaining forgiveness by Black.
There are a variety of organizations involved in playing 'Alcoholic’, some of them national or even international in scope, others local. Many of them publish rules for the game. Nearly all of them explain how to play the role of Alcoholic: take a drink before breakfast, spend money allotted for other purposes, etc. They also explain the function of the Rescuer role in the game. Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, continues playing the actual game but concentrates on inducing the Alcoholic to take the role of Rescuer. Former Alcoholics are preferred because they know how the game goes, and hence are better qualified to play the supporting role of Rescuer than people who have never played before.
According to this type of analysis, with the rise of rescue organizations which publicize that alcoholism is a disease rather than a transactional game, alcoholics have been taught to play "Wooden Leg", a different game in which an organic ailment absolves White of blame.

The script for "Drunk"

Roles: Victim (addict), Persecutor (usually spouse), Rescuer (often family member of same sex), Patsy (enabler), Connection (supplier)
Pastimes: Martini (how much I used) and morning after (look what you made me do). Many addicts find unlimited access to these pastimes in organizations such as AA.
The game is played from the Victim role as "see how bad I've been; see if you can stop me." The purpose is self-punishment and the garnering of negative (persecution) strokes and positive ones of forgiveness, and the vindication of an "I'm not OK" existential position. The game often becomes elaborated into a self-destructive life script, especially if the parents were also chemically dependent.
Effective antithesis and cure can be achieved through psychotherapeutic script analysis, redecision, relearning.

Rackets

A racket is the dual strategy of getting "permitted feelings," while covering up feelings which we truly feel, but which we regard as being "not allowed". More technically, a racket feeling is "a familiar set of emotions, learned and enhanced during childhood, experienced in many different stress situations, and maladaptive as an adult means of problem solving".
A racket is then a set of behaviours which originate from the childhood script rather than in here-and-now full Adult thinking, which (1) are employed as a way to manipulate the environment to match the script rather than to actually solve the problem, and (2) whose covert goal is not so much to solve the problem, as to experience these racket feelings and feel internally justified in experiencing them.
Examples of racket and racket feelings: "Why do I meet good guys who turn out to be so hurtful", or "He always takes advantage of my goodwill". The racket is then a set of behaviours and chosen strategies learned and practised in childhood which in fact help to cause these feelings to be experienced. Typically this happens despite their own surface protestations and hurt feelings, out of awareness and in a way that is perceived as someone else's fault. One covert pay-off for this racket and its feelings, might be to gain in a guilt free way, continued evidence and reinforcement for a childhood script belief that "People will always let you down".
In other words, rackets and games are devices used by a person to create a circumstance where they can legitimately feel the racket feelings, thus abiding by and reinforcing their Childhood script. They are always a substitute for a more genuine and full adult emotion and response which would be a more appropriate response to the here-and-now situation.

Ways of Time Structuring

There are six ways of structuring time by giving and receiving strokes:
Withdrawal
Ritual
Pastimes
Activity
Games
Intimacy
This is sorted in accordance with stroke strength; Intimacy and Games in general allow for the most intensive strokes.

Withdrawal

This means no strokes are being exchanged


Rituals

A ritual is a series of transactions that are complementary (reciprocal), stereotyped and based on social programming. Rituals usually comprise a series of strokes exchanged between two parties.
For instance, two people may have a daily two stroke ritual, where, the first time they meet each day, each one greets the other with a "Hi". Others may have a four stroke ritual, such as:
A: Hi!
B: Hi! How are you?
A: Getting along. What about you?
B: Fine. See you around.
The next time they meet in the day, they may not exchange any strokes at all, or may just acknowledge each other's presence with a curt nod.
Some phenomena associated with daily rituals:
If a person exchanges fewer strokes than expected, the other person may feel that he is either preoccupied or acting high and mighty.
If a person exchanges more strokes than expected, the other person might wonder whether he is trying to butter him up or get on good terms for some vested interests.
If two people do not meet for a long time, a backlog of strokes gets built up, so that the next time they meet, they may exchange a large number of strokes to catch up.

Pastimes

A pastime is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), semi-ritualistic, and is mainly intended as a time-structuring activity. Pastimes have no covert purpose and can usually be carried out only between people on the same wavelength. They are usually shallow and harmless. Pastimes are a type of smalltalk.
Individuals often partake in similar pastimes throughout their entire life, as pastimes are generally very much linked to one's life script and the games that one often plays. Some pastimes can even be understood as a reward for playing a certain game. For example, Eric Berne in Games People Play discusses how those who play the "Alcoholic" game (which Berne differentiated from alcoholism and alcoholics) often enjoy the "Morning After" pastime in which participants share their most amusing or harrowing hangover stories.

Activities (Work)


Activities in this context mean the individuals work together for a common goal. This may be work, sports or something similar. In contrast to Pastimes, there is a meaningful purpose guiding the interactions, while Pastimes are just about exchanging strokes. Strokes can then be given in the context of the cooperation. Thus the strokes are generally not personal, but related to the activity.

Games (detailes in a separate post)

Intimacy

Intimacy as a way of structuring time allows one to exchange the strongest strokes without playing a Game. Intimacy differs from Games as there is no covert purpose, and differs from Activities as there is no other process going on which defines a context of cooperation. Strokes are personal, relating to the other person, and often unconditional.

Phenomena behind the transactions

Life positions


In TA theory,"Life Position" refers to the general feeling about life (specifically, the unconscious feeling, as opposed to a conscious philosophical position) that colours every dyadic (i.e. person-to-person) transaction. Initially four such Life Positions were proposed:
"I'm Not OK, You're OK" (I-U+)
"I'm Not OK, You're Not OK" (I-U-)
"I'm OK, You're Not OK" (I+U-)
"I'm OK, You're OK" (I+U+)
However, lately, an Australian TA analyst has claimed that in order to better represent the Life Position behind disorders that were not, allegedly, as widespread and/or recognized at the time when TA was conceptualized as they are now (such as borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder) the above list requires alteration. Also, two additional Life Positions are proposed [15]:
"I'm not-OK, You're OK" (I-U+)
"I'm not-OK, You're not-OK" (I-U-)
"I'm not-OK, But You're Worse" (I-U--)
"I'm not-OK, You're Irrelevant" (I-U?)
"I'm a Bit More OK Than You Are" (I++U+)
"I'm OK, You're OK" (I+U+)
"I'm OK, You're Irrelevant" (I+U?)
The difference between one's own OK-ness and other's OK-ness captured by description "I'm OK, You're not-OK" is proposed to be substituted by description that more accurately captures one's own feeling (not jumping to conclusions based only on one's perceived behavior), therefore stating the difference in a new way: "I'm not-OK, but You're worse" (I-,U--), instead.


Life (or Childhood) Script


- Script is a life plan, directed to a reward[16].
- Script is decisional and responsive; i.e., decided upon in childhood in response to perceptions of the world and as a means of living with and making sense of the world. It is not just thrust upon a person by external forces.
- Script is reinforced by parents (or other influential figures and experiences).
- Script is for the most part outside awareness.
- Script is how we navigate and what we look for, the rest of reality is redefined (distorted) to match our filters.
Each culture, country and people in the world has a Mythos, that is, a legend explaining its origins, core beliefs and purpose. According to TA, so do individual people. A person begins writing his/her own life story (script) at a young age, as he/she tries to make sense of the world and his place within it. Although it is revised throughout life, the core story is selected and decided upon typically by age 7. As adults it passes out of awareness. A life script might be "to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die", and could result in a person indeed setting himself up for this, by adopting behaviours in childhood that produce exactly this effect. Though Berne identified several dozen common scripts, there are a practically infinite number of them. Though often largely destructive, scripts could as easily be mostly positive or beneficial.

Redefining and Discounting


- Redefining means the distortion of reality when we deliberately (but unconsciously) distort things to match our preferred way of seeing the world. Thus a person whose script involves "struggling alone against a cold hard world" may redefine others' kindness, concluding that others are trying to get something by manipulation.
- Discounting means to take something as worth less than it is. Thus to give a substitute reaction which does not originate as a here-and-now Adult attempt to solve the actual problem, or to choose not to see evidence that would contradict one's script. Types of discount can also include: passivity (doing nothing), over-adaptation, agitation, incapacitation, anger and violence.


Injunctions and Drivers

TA identifies twelve key injunctions which people commonly build into their scripts. These are injunctions in the sense of being powerful "I can't/mustn't ..." messages that embed into a child's belief and life-script:
Don't be (don't exist)
Don't be who you are
Don't be a child
Don't grow up
Don't make it in your life
Don't do anything!
Don't be important
Don't belong
Don't be close
Don't be well (don't be sane!)
Don't think
Don't feel.
In addition there is the so-called episcript:
"You should (or deserve to) have this happen in your life, so it doesn't have to happen to me." (Magical thinking on the part of the parent(s).)
Against these, a child is often told other things he or she must do. There is debate as to whether there are five or six of these 'drivers':
Please (me/others)!
Be perfect!
Be Strong!
Try Hard!
Hurry Up!
Be Careful! (is in dispute)

Thus in creating his script, a child will often attempt to juggle these, example: "It's okay for me to go on living (ignore don't exist) so long as I try hard".
This explains why some change is inordinately difficult. To continue the above example: When a person stops trying hard and relaxes to be with his family, the injunction You don't have the right to exist which was being suppressed by their script now becomes exposed and a vivid threat. Such an individual may feel a massive psychological pressure which he himself doesn't understand, to return to trying hard, in order to feel safe and justified (in a childlike way) in existing.
Driver behaviour is also detectable at a very small scale, for instance in instinctive responses to certain situations where driver behaviour is played out over five to twenty seconds.
Broadly speaking, scripts can fall into Tragic, Heroic or Banal (or Non-Winner) varieties, depending on their rules.

Transactions and Strokes

Transactions are the flow of communication, and more specifically the unspoken psychological flow of communication that runs in parallel. Transactions occur simultaneously at both explicit and psychological levels. Example: sweet caring voice with sarcastic intent. To read the real communication requires both surface and non-verbal reading.
Strokes are the recognition, attention or responsiveness that one person gives another. Strokes can be positive (nicknamed "warm fuzzies") or negative ("cold pricklies"). A key idea is that people hunger for recognition, and that lacking positive strokes, will seek whatever kind they can, even if it is recognition of a negative kind. We test out as children what strategies and behaviours seem to get us strokes, of whatever kind we can get.
People often create pressure in (or experience pressure from) others to communicate in a way that matches their style, so that a boss who talks to his staff as a controlling parent will often engender self-abasement or other childlike responses. Those employees who resist may get removed or labeled as "trouble".
Transactions can be experienced as positive or negative depending on the nature of the strokes within them. However, a negative transaction is preferred to no transaction at all, because of a fundamental hunger for strokes.
The nature of transactions is important to understanding communication.

Kinds of transactions

There are basically three kinds of transactions:
1.Reciprocal/Complementary (the simplest)
2.Crossed
3.Duplex/Covert (the most complex)

Reciprocal or Complementary Transactions

A simple, reciprocal transaction occurs when both partners are addressing the ego state the other is in. These are also called complementary transactions.
Example 1
A: "Have you been able to write the report?"
B: "Yes - I'm about to email it to you." ----(This exchange was Adult to Adult)
Example 2
A: "Would you like to skip this meeting and go watch a film with me instead?"
B: "I'd love to - I don't want to work anymore, what should we go and see?" (Child to Child)
Example 3
A: "You should have your room tidy by now!" (Parent to Child)
B: "Will you stop hassling me? I'll do it eventually!" (Child to Parent)
Communication like this can continue indefinitely. (Clearly it will stop at some stage - but this psychologically balanced exchange of strokes can continue for some time).

Crossed Transactions

Communication failures are typically caused by a 'crossed transaction' where partners address ego states other than that their partner is in. Consider the above examples jumbled up a bit.
Example 1a:
A: "Have you been able to write that report?" (Adult to Adult)
B: "Will you stop hassling me? I'll do it eventually!" (Child to Parent)
is a crossed transaction likely to produce problems in the workplace. "A" may respond with a Parent to Child transaction. For instance:
A: "If you don't change your attitude, you'll get fired."
Example 2a:
A: "Is your room tidy yet?" (Parent to Child)
B: "I'm just going to do it, actually." (Adult to Adult)
is a more positive crossed transaction. However there is the risk that "A" will feel aggrieved that "B" is acting responsibly and not playing their role, and the conversation will develop into:
A: "I can never trust you to do things!" (Parent to Child)
B: "Why don't you believe anything I say?" (Adult to Adult)
which can continue indefinitely.

Duplex or Covert transactions

Another class of transaction is the 'duplex' or 'covert' transactions, where the explicit social conversation occurs in parallel with an implicit psychological transaction. For instance,
A: "I need you to stay late at the office with me." (Adult words)
body language indicates sexual intent (flirtatious Child)
B: "Of course." (Adult response to Adult statement).
winking or grinning (Child accepts the hidden motive).

Key ideas of TA

Some core models and concepts are part of TA as follows:
The Ego-State (or Parent-Adult-Child, PAC) model
At any given time, a person experiences and manifests their personality through a mixture of behaviours, thoughts and feelings. Typically, according to TA, there are three ego-states that people consistently use:
Parent ("exteropsyche"): a state in which people behave, feel, and think in response to an unconscious mimicking of how their parents (or other parental figures) acted, or how they interpreted their parent's actions. For example, a person may shout at someone out of frustration because they learned from an influential figure in childhood the lesson that this seemed to be a way of relating that worked.
Adult ("neopsyche"): a state of the ego which is most like a computer processing information and making predictions absent of major emotions that cloud its operation. Learning to strengthen the Adult is a goal of TA. While a person is in the Adult ego state, he/she is directed towards an objective appraisal of reality.
Child ("archaeopsyche"): a state in which people behave, feel and think similarly to how they did in childhood. For example, a person who receives a poor evaluation at work may respond by looking at the floor, and crying or pouting, as they used to when scolded as a child. Conversely, a person who receives a good evaluation may respond with a broad smile and a joyful gesture of thanks. The Child is the source of emotions, creation, recreation, spontaneity and intimacy.
Berne differentiated his Parent, Adult, and Child ego states from actual adults, parents, and children, by using capital letters when describing them. These ego-states may or may not represent the relationships that they act out. For example, in the workplace, an adult supervisor may take on the Parent role, and scold an adult employee as though they were a Child. Or a child, using their Parent ego-state, could scold their actual parent as though the parent were a Child.
Within each of these ego states are subdivisions. Thus Parental figures are often either nurturing (permission-giving, security-giving) or criticizing (comparing to family traditions and ideals in generally negative ways); Childhood behaviours are either natural (free) or adapted to others. These subdivision categorize individuals' patterns of behaviour, feelings, and ways of thinking, that can be functional (beneficial or positive) or dysfunctional/counterproductive (negative).
Berne states that there are four types of diagnosis of ego states. They are the behavioural diagnosis, social diagnosis, historical diagnosis and the phenomenological diagnosis of ego states. For a complete diagnosis one needs to complete all four types. It has been subsequently demonstrated that there is in fact a fifth way of diagnosis. It is known as the contextual diagnosis of ego states. For example if a man says, “On July 5th, 2007 the alignment of the planets will create a magnetic field so large that there will be the biggest tides in half a century”, what ego state would be diagnosed?
If that man was of a dishevelled appearance, had not shaven for 2 days and was sitting on a park bench drinking out of a bottle in a brown paper bag what ego state would be diagnosed?. Probably some kind of regressed Child ego state. If that man was in an observatory wearing a white coat and carrying a clip board what ego state would be diagnosed? Probably Adult ego state. The different contexts for the same statement would tend to result in a different diagnosis. The context in which the statement is made is central to the diagnosis of ego states.
Ego-states do not correspond directly to Sigmund Freud's Ego, Superego and Id, although there are obvious parallels: ie, Superego:Ego:Id::Parent:Adult:Child. Ego states are consistent for each person and are argued by TA practitioners as more readily observable than the pats in Freud's hypothetical model. In other words, the particular ego state that a given person is communicating from is determinable by external observation and experience.
There is no "universal" ego-state; each state is individually and visibly manifested for each person. For example, each Child ego state is unique to the childhood experiences, mentality, intellect, and family of each individual; it is not a generalised childlike state.
Ego states can become contaminated, for example, when a person mistakes Parental rules and slogans, for here-and-now Adult reality, and when beliefs are taken as facts. Or when a person "knows" that everyone is laughing at them because "they always laughed". This would be an example of a childhood contamination, insofar as here-and-now reality is being overlaid with memories of previous historic incidents in childhood.
Although TA theory claims that Ego states do not correspond directly to thinking, feeling, and judging, as these processes are present in every ego state, this claim is self-contradictory to the claim that the Adult is like a computer processing information, therefore not feeling unless it is contaminated by the Child.
Berne suspected that Parent, Adult, and Child ego states might be tied to specific areas of the human brain; an idea that has not been proved.
The three ego state model has been questioned by a TA group in Australia, who have devised a "two ego-state model" as a means of solving perceived theoretical problems:
"The two ego-state model says that there is a Child ego-state and a Parent ego-state, placing the Adult ego-state with the Parent ego-state. [...] How we learn to speak, add up and learn how to think is all just copied from our teachers. Just as our morals and values are copied from our parents. There is no absolute truth where facts exist out side a person’s own belief system. Berne mistakenly concluded that there was and thus mistakenly put the Adult ego-state as separate from the Parent ego-state."

Fifty years later

Within the overarching framework of transactional analysis, more recent transactional analysts have elaborated several different, if overlapping, “flavors:” cognitive, behavioral, relational, redecision, integrative, constructivist, narrative, body-work, positive psychological, personality adaptational, self-reparenting, psychodynamic, and neuroconstructivist[citation needed].
Some transactional analysts[who?] highlight the many things they have in common with cognitive-behavioral therapists: the use of contracts with clear goals, the attention to cognitive distortions (called “Adult decontamination” or “Child deconfusion”), the focus on the client’s conscious attitudes and behaviors and the use of “strokes”.
Cognitive-based transactional analysts use ego state identification to identify communication distortions and teach different functional options in the dynamics of communication. Some make additional contracts for more profound work involving life-plans or scripts or with unconscious processes, including those which manifest in the client-therapist relationship as transference and countertransference, and define themselves as psychodynamic or relational transactional analysts. Some highlight the study and promotion of subjective well-being and optimal human functioning rather than pathology and so identify with positive psychology[citation needed]. Some are increasingly influenced by current research in attachment, mother-infant interaction, and by the implications of interpersonal neurobiology, and non-linear dynamic systems.

Development of Transactional Analysis

Leaving psychoanalysis half a century ago, Eric Berne presented transactional analysis to the world as a phenomenological approach replacing Freud's philosophical construct with observable data. His theory built on the science of Penfield and Spitz along with the neo-psychoanalytic thought of people such as Paul Federn, Weiss, and Erikson. By moving to an interpersonal motivational theory, he placed it both in opposition to the psychoanalytic traditions of his day and within what would become the psychoanalytic traditions of the future.
From Berne, transactional analysts have inherited a determination to create an accessible and user-friendly system, an understanding of script or life-plan, ego states, transactions, and a theory of groups.
They also inherited troubled aspects of his thinking and personality, especially his rebelliousness and antagonism toward the psychoanalysis of his day. They have inherited misunderstandings arising from the ill-informed equation of the ego states of transactional analysis with the psychoanalytic constructs of id, ego, and superego, and from the consequences of the popularity of his book Games People Play which resulted in the vulgarization of some of its concepts.
These problems have been compounded by the isolationist and elitist attitude that permeated the beginnings of transactional analysis as it established its own standards for competency-based credentialing without taking into account other training or certification in occupational fields—while at the same time paradoxically cultivating the “pop psychology” image that appealed to mental health clients and other consumers in organizations and education.

History of TA

TA is a neo-Freudian theory of personality. Berne's ego states are heavily influenced by Freud's id, ego and superego, although they do not precisely correspond with them. A primary difference between Berne and Freud is the former's treatment of the observable transactions known as "games". A number of books popularized TA in the general public but did little to gain acceptance in the conventional psychoanalytic community. TA is considered by its adherents to be a more user-friendly and accessible model than the conventional psychoanalytic model. A number of modern-day TA practitioners emphasize the similarities with cognitive-behaviorist models while others emphasize different models.
[edit]General History
TA is not only post-Freudian but, according to its founder's wishes, consciously extra-Freudian. That is to say that, while it has its roots in psychoanalysis, since Berne was a psychoanalytically-trained psychiatrist, it was designed as a dissenting branch of psychoanalysis in that it put its emphasis on transactional, rather than "psycho-", analysis.
With its focus on transactions, TA shifted the attention from internal psychological dynamics to the dynamics contained in people's interactions. Rather than believing that increasing awareness of the contents of unconsciously held ideas was the therapeutic path, TA concentrated on the content of people's interactions with each other. Changing these interactions was TA's path to solving emotional problems.
In addition, Berne believed in making a commitment to "curing" his patients rather than just understanding them. To that end he introduced one of the most important aspects of TA: the contract—an agreement entered into by both client and therapist to pursue specific changes that the client desires.
Revising Freud's concept of the human psyche as composed of the id, ego, and super-ego, Berne postulated in addition three "ego states"—the Parent, Adult, and Child states—which were largely shaped through childhood experiences. These three are all part of Freud's ego; none represent the id or the superego.
Unhealthy childhood experiences can lead to these being pathologically fixated in the Child and Parent ego states, bringing discomfort to an individual and/or others in a variety of forms, including many types of mental illness.
Berne considered how individuals interact with one another, and how the ego states affect each set of transactions. Unproductive or counterproductive transactions were considered to be signs of ego state problems. Analyzing these transactions according to the person's individual developmental history would enable the person to "get better". Berne thought that virtually everyone has something problematic about their ego states and that negative behavior would not be addressed by "treating" only the problematic individual.
Berne identified a typology of common counterproductive social interactions, identifying these as "games".
Berne presented his theories in two popular books on transactional analysis: Games People Play (1964) and What Do You Say After You Say Hello? (1975). As a result of this popularity, TA came to be disdained in many[citation needed] mainstream mental health circles as an example of "pop psychology". I'm OK, You're OK (1969), written by Berne's longtime friend Thomas Anthony Harris, is probably the most popular TA book. Many TA therapists regard I'm OK, You're OK as an oversimplification or worse.[citation needed]
TA was also dismissed by the conventional psychoanalytic community[citation needed] because of its radical departures from Freudian theory. However, by the 1970s, because of its non-technical and non-threatening jargon and model of the human psyche, many of its terms and concepts were adopted by eclectic therapists as part of their individual approaches to psychotherapy. It also served well as a therapy model for groups of patients, or marital/family counselees, where interpersonal (rather than intrapersonal) disturbances were the focus of treatment. Critics[11] have charged that TA—especially as loosely interpreted by those outside the more formal TA community—is a pseudoscience, when it is in fact[citation needed] better understood as a philosophy which happens to meet all the criteria listed in the Wikipedia entry for belief system.
TA's popularity in the U.S. waned in the 1970s, but it retains some popularity elsewhere in the world.[11] The more dedicated TA purists banded together in 1964 with Berne to form a research and professional accrediting body, the International Transactional Analysis Association, or ITAA. This organization is still active as of 2009.

Philosophy of TA

1. People are OK; thus each person has validity, importance, equality of respect.
2. Everyone (with only few exceptions, such as the severely brain-damaged) has the capacity to think.
3. People decide their story and destiny, and these decisions can be changed.
Freedom from historical maladaptations embedded in the childhood script is required in order to become free of inappropriate, inauthentic, and displaced emotions which are not a fair and honest reflection of here-and-now life (such as echoes of childhood suffering, pity-me and other mind games, compulsive behavior, and repetitive dysfunctional life patterns). The aim of change under TA is to move toward autonomy (freedom from childhood script), spontaneity, intimacy, problem solving as opposed to avoidance or passivity, cure as an ideal rather than merely making progress, learning new choices.

Istoric Analiza Tranzactionala (part 1)

Transactional analysis, commonly known as TA to its adherents, is an integrative approach to the theory of psychology and psychotherapy. Integrative because it has elements of psychoanalytic, humanist and cognitive approaches. It was developed by Canadian-born US psychiatrist Eric Berne during the late 1950s.
According to the International Transactional Analysis Association[1]TA 'is a theory of personality and a systematic psychotherapy for personal growth and personal change.
As a theory of personality, TA describes how people are structured psychologically. It uses what is perhaps its best known model, the ego-state (Parent-Adult-Child) model to do this. This same model helps explain how people function and express their personality in their behavior.
It is a theory of communication that can be extended to the analysis of systems and organisations.
It offers a theory for child development, by explaining how our adult patterns of life originated in childhood. This explanation is based on the idea of a "Life (or Childhood) Script": the assumption that we continue to re-play childhood strategies, even when this results in pain or defeat. Thus it claims to offer a theory of psychopathology.
In practical application, it can be used in the diagnosis and treatment of many types of psychological disorders, and provides a method of therapy for individuals, couples, families and groups.
Outside the therapeutic field, it has been used in education, to help teachers remain in clear communication at an appropriate level, in counselling and consultancy, in management and communications training, and by other bodies.