idea
Transactional analysis is an psycho-analysis framework. It defines a common language describing people's behaviors assembled as systems of feelings constituting ego states sorted in categories:
- the Parent - core beliefs acquired through authority figures
- the Child - archaic emotions and reactions acquired through childhood feelings. Natural Child is the creative and "free" set of emotions. Adapted Child is the Child under parental influence.
- the Adult - objective and ration part of the ego basing itself on reality.
Goal of TA is to develop the Adult and achieve "Autonomy", i.e. becoming a self-governing Adult.
TA analyses people based on transactions composed of a stimulus and a response.
- Example of P/P transaction: A: - buses are never on time; B: tell me about it
- Example of A->A/P->C: A: - where is my watch; B: where you left it.
Transactions that are parallel (e.g. P->P/P->P or C->P, P->C) can carry indefinitely.
Transactions that are crossed (e.g. A->A, P->C) are unstable and one of the individuals needs to change ego state for communication to be re-established.
TA also defines 4 life positions which define perceived state of transaction
- I am not ok / you are not ok
- I am not ok / you are ok
- I am ok / you are ok
- I am ok / you are not ok
According to Harris, people start from "I'm not ok / you are ok", because of their codependent relationships as kids with adults. (I'm not ok and everybody else got their shit figured out). Goal is to arrive to a state of autonomy "I'm ok / you're ok".
People themselves stories based on "I can be ok if [...]"
There are several ways of structuring time - individual (activity and fantasy) or in aggregations (rituals, pastimes, games, intimacy and activity). Pastimes are scripted chitchat about weather, cars, etc.
Games are a ritualistic type of transactions based on individual life positions and ego state, and with predictable outcome. They have a payoff, a winner and a loser. They are mostly designed to deal with "I'm not ok" positions. Examples of games:
- why don't you / yes but: A (Helpless) discusses with B (advisor). A is trying to prove that they're not ok and it's not fixable. B gives advice that A finds good excuses to discard. B loses when giving up and feeling they can't help, A wins some confidence that they are not OK. Solutions: leave the game: turn down, or return to them (what are you gonna do about it)
- now I've got you, you son of a bitch: A argues about something polemic that they know more about, and pushing B in a corner who needs to admit they have no argument. A wins confidence that they're OK.
- if it weren't for you: A wants to do x but is afraid of doing it. B is doing y wrong. A uses B's wrongdoings on y as an excuse not to do x
- mine is better than yours
links
As with Meditation the goal is to become a rational and happy being.